Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42865789›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026

Comparison of analgesic efficacy and safety between liposomal bupivacaine and ropivacaine for paravertebral block in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lung tumor surgery: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Yi Zhang, Heli Gao, Xue Zhang, Huiling Li, Xiawei Hu, Honggang Zhang, Xiaoxia An

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yi ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Heli GaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Xue ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Huiling LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Xiawei HuDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Honggang ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Xiaoxia AnDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Thoracoscopic lung tumor surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain. While liposomal bupivacaine (LB) provides prolonged analgesia, its higher cost and extended duration profile have not been directly compared with ropivacaine, a commonly used long‑acting local anesthetic in paravertebral blockade. Whether these differences translate into meaningful clinical benefits remains uncertain. This study assessed the utility of LB as an alternative method for pain control through a comparison with ropivacaine. Methods: In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 200 patients scheduled for elective thoracoscopic lung tumor surgery were randomly assigned to control [paravertebral block (PVB) with 10 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine; n=100] or experimental (PVB with 10 mL of 1.3% LB; n=100) groups. Postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with hydromorphone (10 mg/180 mL; background: 0 mL/h; bolus: 5 mL; lockout: 15 min) was initiated in all patients. Primary outcomes included pain scores of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) at rest and during movement at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 hours post-operation; and the cumulative morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at 0-<24, 24-<48, 48-72, and 0-72 hours (including both PCIA and rescue analgesics). Secondary outcomes included PCIA doses, rescue analgesia, and adverse events within 72 hours. Exploratory 3‑month telephone follow‑up assessed pain presence during usual activities and breathing. Results: Of 200 randomized patients, 184 completed in‑hospital follow‑up (92 per group) and were included in the primary analysis.Sixteen patients were excluded after randomization (3 due to cancelled surgery, 4 due to reoperation, 5 due to postoperative complications, and 4 due to withdrawal of consent). Compared with the control group, the LB group showed significantly lower resting NRS scores at 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours (P=0.04, 0.04, 0.02, and 0.01, respectively) and dynamic NRS scores at all time points (6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 hours) (P=0.02, 0.001, 0.002, 0.04, 0.03, and 0.046, respectively). MME consumption was significantly reduced in the LB group during the 48- to 72-hour interval (P=0.03) and cumulatively over 0-72 hours (P=0.03). The number of delivered PCIA doses was significantly lower in the LB group during the 48- to 72-hour interval (P=0.02), with no significant differences in the 0 to 24- or 24- to 48-hour intervals. Rescue analgesia rates (3.3% Conclusions: In thoracoscopic lung tumor surgery, PVB with LB provides improved and sustained postoperative analgesia and reduces opioid consumption as compared with ropivacaine, without increasing the incidence of adverse events. It may represent a safe and effective single-injection alternative for multimodal analgesia. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2400093464.

Indexed as

analgesiaLiposomal bupivacaine (LB)paravertebral block (PVB)video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS)

Identifiers

PMID42865789
PMCPMC13655818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.