Impact of Local Administration of Liposome Bupivacaine for Postsurgical Analgesia on Wound Healing: A Review of Data From Ten Prospective, Controlled Clinical Studies

Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Despite multi-modal analgesic techniques, acute postoperative pain remains an unmet health need, with up to three quarters of people undergoing surgery reporting significant pain. Liposomal bupivacaine is an analgesic consisting of bupivacaine hydrochloride encapsulated within multiple, non-concentric lipid bi-layers offering a novel method of sustained-release analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain.

SEARCH METHODS

On 13 January 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, ISI Web of Science and reference lists of retrieved articles. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched clinical trials databases for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials in people aged 18 years or over undergoing elective surgery, at any surgical site, were included if they compared liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site with placebo or other type of analgesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed data analysis using standard statistical techniques as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, using Review Manager 5.3. We planned to perform a meta-analysis and produce a 'Summary of findings' table for each comparison however there were insufficient data to ensure a clinically meaningful answer. As such we have produced two 'Summary of findings' tables in a narrative format. Where possible we assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies (10 reports, 1377 participants) that met inclusion criteria. Four Phase II dose-escalating/de-escalating trials, designed to evaluate and demonstrate efficacy and safety, presented pooled data that we could not use. Of the remaining five parallel-arm studies (965 participants), two were placebo controlled and three used bupivacaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic infiltration as a control. Using the Cochrane tool, we judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall; however, two studies were at high risk of selective reporting bias and four studies were at high risk of bias due to size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm).Three studies (551 participants) reported the primary outcome cumulative pain intensity over 72 hours following surgery. Compared to placebo, liposomal bupivacaine was associated with a lower cumulative pain score between the end of the operation (0 hours) and 72 hours (one study, very low quality). Compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, two studies showed no difference for this outcome (very low quality evidence), however due to differences in the surgical population and surgical procedure (breast augmentation versus knee arthroplasty) we did not perform a meta-analysis.No serious adverse events were reported to be associated with the use of liposomal bupivacaine and none of the five studies reported withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events (moderate quality evidence).One study reported a lower mean pain score at 12 hours associated with liposomal bupivacaine compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, but not at 24, 48 or 72 hours postoperatively (very low quality evidence).Two studies (382 participants) reported a longer time to first postoperative opioid dose compared to placebo (low quality evidence).Two studies (325 participants) reported the total postoperative opioid consumption over the first 72 hours: one study reported a lower cumulative opioid consumption for liposomal bupivacaine compared to placebo (very low quality evidence); one study reported no difference compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride (very low quality evidence).Three studies (492 participants) reported the percentage of participants not requiring postoperative opioids over initial 72 hours following surgery. One of the two studies comparing liposomal bupivacaine to placebo demonstrated a higher number of participants receiving liposomal bupivacaine did not require postoperative opioids (very low quality evidence). The other two studies, one versus placebo and one versus bupivacaine hydrochloride, found no difference in opioid requirement (very low quality evidence). Due to significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 92%) we did not pool the results.All the included studies reported adverse events within 30 days of surgery, with nausea, constipation and vomiting being the most common. Of the five parallel-arm studies, none performed or reported health economic assessments or patient-reported outcomes other than pain.Using GRADE, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The major limitation was the sparseness of data for outcomes of interest. In addition, a number of studies had a high risk of bias resulting in further downgrading.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Liposomal bupivacaine at the surgical site does appear to reduce postoperative pain compared to placebo, however, at present the limited evidence does not demonstrate superiority to bupivacaine hydrochloride. There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events and no study withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events. Overall due to the low quality and volume of evidence our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and the true effect may be substantially different from our estimate.

Surgical Site Infiltration for Abdominal Surgery: A Novel Neuroanatomical-based Approach

BACKGROUND

Provision of optimal postoperative analgesia should facilitate postoperative ambulation and rehabilitation. An optimal multimodal analgesia technique would include the use of nonopioid analgesics, including local/regional analgesic techniques such as surgical site local anesthetic infiltration. This article presents a novel approach to surgical site infiltration techniques for abdominal surgery based upon neuroanatomy.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted for studies reporting the neuroanatomical sources of pain after abdominal surgery. Also, studies identified by preceding search were reviewed for relevant publications and manually retrieved.

RESULTS

Based on neuroanatomy, an optimal surgical site infiltration technique would consist of systematic, extensive, meticulous administration of local anesthetic into the peritoneum (or preperitoneum), subfascial, and subdermal tissue planes. The volume of local anesthetic would depend on the size of the incision such that 1 to 1.5 mL is injected every 1 to 2 cm of surgical incision per layer. It is best to infiltrate with a 22-gauge, 1.5-inch needle. The needle is inserted approximately 0.5 to 1 cm into the tissue plane, and local anesthetic solution is injected while slowly withdrawing the needle, which should reduce the risk of intravascular injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Meticulous, systematic, and extensive surgical site local anesthetic infiltration in the various tissue planes including the peritoneal, musculofascial, and subdermal tissues, where pain foci originate, provides excellent postoperative pain relief. This approach should be combined with use of other nonopioid analgesics with opioids reserved for rescue. Further well-designed studies are necessary to assess the analgesic efficacy of the proposed infiltration technique.

Nanoencapsulation, an efficient and promising approach to maximize wound healing efficacy of curcumin: A review of new trends and state-of-the-art

Wound healing is a multifarious and vibrant process of replacing devitalized and damaged cellular structures, leading to restoration of the skin's barrier function, re-establishment of tissue integrity, and maintenance of the internal homeostasis. Curcumin (CUR) and its analogs have gained widespread recognition due to their remarkable anti-inflammatory, anti-infective, anticancer, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, and wound healing activities. However, their pharmaceutical significance is limited due to inherent hydrophobic nature, poor water solubility, low bioavailability, chemical instability, rapid metabolism and short half-life. Owing to their pharmaceutical limitations, newer strategies have been attempted in recent years aiming to mitigate problems related to the effective delivery of curcumanoids and to improve their wound healing potential. These advanced strategies include nanovesicles, polymeric micelles, conventional liposomes and hyalurosomes, nanocomposite hydrogels, electrospun nanofibers, nanohybrid scaffolds, nanoconjugates, nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs), nanoemulsion, nanodispersion, and polymeric nanoparticles (NPs). The superior wound healing activities achieved after nanoencapsulation of the CUR are attributed to its target-specific delivery, longer retention at the target site, avoiding premature degradation of the encapsulated cargo and the therapeutic superiority of the advanced delivery systems over the conventional delivery. We have critically reviewed the literature and summarize the convincing evidence which explore the pharmaceutical significance and therapeutic feasibility of the advanced delivery systems in improving wound healing activities of the CUR and its analogs.

An extended release local anaesthetic: potential for future use in veterinary surgical patients?

One of the most effective means of preventing the transduction and transmission of acute and perioperative pain is through the use of local anaesthetics. However, local anaesthetics currently available have a relatively short duration of action. Although there are several tools available to treat perioperative pain in companion animals, overall, there is an unmet need for products that can be administered in the clinic, and provide pain relief for the crucial first few days following surgery in the home environment. Specifically, in relation to local anaesthetics, there is a clear unmet need for a long-acting local anaesthetic that can be added to the multimodal analgesic protocol to provide pain relief to patients in the home environment or during extended hospitalization. Bupivacaine liposomal injectable suspension recently became available for use in humans, and has proven efficacious and safe. This paper will review the use of local anaesthetics, particularly bupivacaine, in dogs and cats, and introduce a new formulation of prolonged release bupivacaine that is in development for dogs and cats.

Nanoparticles and nanofibers for topical drug delivery

This review provides the first comprehensive overview of the use of both nanoparticles and nanofibers for topical drug delivery. Researchers have explored the use of nanotechnology, specifically nanoparticles and nanofibers, as drug delivery systems for topical and transdermal applications. This approach employs increased drug concentration in the carrier, in order to increase drug flux into and through the skin. Both nanoparticles and nanofibers can be used to deliver hydrophobic and hydrophilic drugs and are capable of controlled release for a prolonged period of time. The examples presented provide significant evidence that this area of research has - and will continue to have - a profound impact on both clinical outcomes and the development of new products.

Proliposomal Ropivacaine Oil: Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Data After Subcutaneous Administration in Volunteers

BACKGROUND

Slow-release liposomal formulations of local anesthetics prolong plasma redistribution and reduce peak plasma drug concentration, allowing safer administration of larger doses and further prolonging sensory effects. However, their clinical applicability is limited by expensive manufacture and liposomal leakage. Previously, we described the simple preparation of a novel proliposomal ropivacaine oil that produces multilamellar liposomal vesicles on exposure to aqueous media and that has a shelf-life of >2 years at room temperature. In this study, we present both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data in healthy volunteers after subcutaneous injection of this novel proliposomal preparation of ropivacaine.

METHODS

In the pharmacodynamic phase of this study, 15 volunteers received 3 separate subcutaneous injections of 2.5 mL containing 1 of the following drugs: proliposomal 4% ropivacaine, plain 0.5% ropivacaine, and the ropivacaine-free proliposomal vehicle. Drugs were administered into the lower back, and their location was randomized and blinded; a separate area was used as an uninjected, open control. Experimental sensory assessment was made at repeated intervals over 72 hours using both pinprick sensation and experimental heat pain tolerance (assessed using quantitative sensory testing). In a separate pharmacokinetic phase of this study, 9 volunteers received subcutaneous injections of 2.5 mL of either proliposomal 4% ropivacaine (n = 6) or plain 0.5% ropivacaine (n = 3); these participants had plasma ropivacaine concentrations assessed at repeated intervals over 72 hours.

RESULTS

The mean ± SE duration of pinprick anesthesia after proliposomal and plain ropivacaine administration lasted 28.8 ± 6.0 and 15.9 ± 3.5 hours, respectively (mean difference, 16.8 hours; 95% confidence interval, 10.0-23.7; P = 0.001). For experimental heat pain, the anesthesia duration was approximately 36 and 12 hours, respectively, with mean ± SE area under the curve of the normalized heat pain tolerance over time 55.0 ± 28.8 Δ°C·min for proliposomal ropivacaine and 9.6 ± 26.0 Δ°C·min for plain ropivacaine (mean difference, 64.6 Δ°C·min; 95% confidence interval, 10.2-119.0; P = 0.036). In the pharmacokinetic study, there was no significant difference in peak plasma concentration in the proliposomal ropivacaine group (164 ± 43 ng/mL compared with 100 ± 41 ng/mL in the plain ropivacaine group; P = 0.07) despite an 8-fold increase in ropivacaine dose in the proliposomal group. The 99% upper prediction limit for peak plasma concentrations (351 ng/mL proliposomal; 279 ng/mL plain) was well below the putative toxic plasma concentration for both groups. The mean ± SE terminal half-life and area under the curve for proliposomal ropivacaine versus plain ropivacaine were 13.8 ± 3.6 hours vs 5.9 ± 2.3 hours (P = 0.011) and 5090 ± 1476 h·ng/mL vs 593 ± 168 h·ng/mL (P = 0.0014), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The prolonged pharmacodynamic effect of proliposomal ropivacaine, together with its delayed elimination and prolonged redistribution to plasma, is compatible to depot-related slow-release and similar to the performance of other liposomal local anesthetics. The advantage of the proliposomal oil is its ease of preparation and its extended shelf-stability at room temperature.

The AAHKS Clinical Research Award: Liposomal Bupivacaine and Periarticular Injection Are Not Superior to Single-Shot Intra-articular Injection for Pain Control in Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative injections can help reduce early postoperative pain in total knee arthroplasty. We proposed that liposomal bupivacaine would not be superior to more common and cheaper injections.

METHODS

A single-blinded prospective randomized study with 207 consecutive patients was completed. Patients were randomized to treatment with periarticular liposomal bupivacaine injection, periarticular injection of bupivacaine/morphine, or intra-articular injection of bupivacaine/morphine at the conclusion of the procedure. Postoperative visual analog pain scores and narcotic consumption were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in postoperative visual analog pain scores or narcotic consumption among the 3 study groups.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular injection of bupivacaine and morphine is as effective for postoperative pain control in total knee arthroplasty as periarticular bupivacaine/morphine injection and liposomal bupivacaine. Use of liposomal bupivacaine in total knee arthroplasty is costly and not justified.

Is There a Benefit for Liposomal Bupivacaine Compared to a Traditional Periarticular Injection in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients With a History of Chronic Opioid Use?

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) poses a major challenge. It delays mobilization, increases opioid consumption and side effects, and lengthens hospitalization. This challenge multiplies when treating an opioid-dependent population. We examined whether a novel suspended release local anesthetic, liposomal bupivacaine (LB) would improve pain control and decrease opioid consumption after TKA compared to a standard periarticular injection in opioid-dependent patients.

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients undergoing TKA were randomly assigned to receive either a periarticular injection (PAI) with LB (n = 20) or with a standard PAI (including a combination of ropivacaine, clonidine, Toradol, Epinepherine, and saline; n = 18) as part of a multimodal pain management approach. All periarticular injections were done by a single surgeon. Perioperative treatment was similar between groups. Postoperative information regarding pain level was evaluated by a pain visual analog scale score. Postoperative opioid consumption was recorded.

RESULTS

After controlling baseline narcotic usage before surgery, no differences were found between groups in daily postoperative narcotic usage (P = .113), average daily pain score (P = .332), or maximum daily pain score (P = .881). However, when examining pain levels separately for each day, pain visual analog scale scores were reported higher in post operative day 1 in the LB group (P = .033).

CONCLUSIONS

LB was not found to be superior to standard PAI in opioid-dependent patients undergoing TKA. This patient population continues to present a challenge even with modern multimodal pain protocols.

Wide Awake Trigger Finger Release Surgery: Prospective Comparison of Lidocaine, Marcaine, and Exparel

BACKGROUND

Local anesthetics are routinely used in hand surgery for procedures such as trigger finger releases (TFRs). However, little is known as to the difference in efficacy and patient experience with various local anesthetics. We prospectively evaluated the efficacy of Lidocaine (L), Marcaine (M), and Exparel (E) to elucidate differences in pain scores and opioid consumption between these groups.

METHODS

All consecutive TFR performed over a 6-month period in 2014 at our institution were divided to receive Lidocaine, Marcaine, or Marcaine with postoperative Exparel. Pain levels, daily opioid consumption, and adverse reactions were recorded and analyzed for postoperative day (POD) 0-3.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients were enrolled (L:53, M:50, E:51). The Lidocaine group reported the highest pain levels for POD 0-1. Marcaine pain levels were similar to Exparel on POD 0 but higher on POD 1. Opioid consumption on POD 0-1 was significantly different with E:27%, M:58% and L:59% as was the number of pills consumed (E:0.70, M: 1.08 and L:1.62). In addition, 50% of Exparel patients required no pain medications and experienced significantly less adverse reactions (E:4%, M:10%, L:13%). By POD 2-3, there were no statistical differences between the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with Marcaine attain better pain control than Lidocaine on POD 0-1but only patients who received Exparel maintained the lowest pain levels through POD 0-3 while using little-to-no opioid medications and with less adverse reactions than Lidocaine or Marcaine alone.

Improving total knee arthroplasty perioperative pain management using a periarticular injection with bupivacaine liposomal suspension

Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) report low satisfaction with postoperative pain control. The purpose of this study is to examine if there is a difference in post-operative pain for TKA patients without femoral nerve block receiving an intra-operative pericapsular injection of bupivacaine liposome suspension (EXPAREL; Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., San Diego, California) versus a concentrated multi drug cocktail. Seventy TKA patients were randomly assigned to either the bupivacaine liposome or the multi-drug cocktail. Post-operative pain scores, morphine sulfate equivalence consumption values, adverse events, and overall pain control satisfaction scores were collected. Patients reported significantly higher pain level for the cocktail group on post-op day 1 (p < .05) and post-op day 2 (p < .01) versus the bupivacaine liposome group. This same trend was found for morphine sulfate equivalence consumption in the PACU (p < .01) and post-op day 2 (p < .01). Higher satisfaction in pain control (p < .001) and overall experience (p < .01) was also found in the bupivacaine liposome group. Finally, significantly more adverse events were found in the multi-drug group versus the bupivacaine liposome group (p < .05). The study findings demonstrated a non-inferior difference, albeit not a clinically significant difference, in patient-perceived pain scores, morphine sulfate equivalence consumption, adverse events, and overall satisfaction.

Continuous wound infusion of ropivacaine for the control of pain after thoracolumbar spinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

A prospective randomized clinical trial was carried out to observe the analgesic efficacy of ropivacaine for postoperative pain following thoracolumbar spinal surgery.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients with elective posterior thoracolumbar spinal surgery were randomly divided into two groups. Local group received 0.33 % ropivacaine by pump through the wound, and intravenous group received flurbiprofen axetil, pentazocine and palonosetron via intravenous pump. We evaluated the level of pain, the incidence of adverse reactions at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 h after operation, and the occurrence of chronic pain 3 months later.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the pain level between the two groups. However, the incidence of nausea, vomiting and chronic pain was significantly lower in the local group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that local infusion of ropivacaine achieved similar analgesic effects to intravenous delivery of analgesic drugs, but significantly reduced incidence of nausea, vomiting and chronic pain.

Bupivacaine liposomal versus bupivacaine: comparative review

Bupivacaine liposomal injection was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a local anesthetic for use in management of postsurgical pain in adults. When compared to placebo, bupivacaine liposomal decreases postoperative pain and opioid use. This review examines the efficacy of bupivacaine liposomal when compared to conventional bupivacaine ± epinephrine using published and unpublished data provided to the FDA by the manufacturer.

Update/Review: changing of use of local anesthesia in the hand

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Summary:

Among the many advances in local anesthesia of the hand, some of the most significant changes in the last 5 years have been the following: (1) the acceptance of safety of locally infiltrated epinephrine with lidocaine for hemostasis, which has removed the need for sedation, brachial plexus blocks, and general anesthesia for most common hand surgery operations and minor hand trauma. (2) The elimination of the 2 injection finger block technique in favor of the single injection palmar block. (3) Local anesthesia can now be consistently injected in the hand with minimal pain. (4) Liposomal release of local anesthetic after injection into the surgical site can provide pain control up to 3 days. This article reviews the impact and best evidence related to these changes.

Liposomal bupivacaine and clinical outcomes

In the multimodal approach to the management of postoperative pain, local infiltration and regional blocks have been increasingly utilized for pain control. One of the limitations of local anesthetics in the postoperative setting is its relatively short duration of action. Multivesicular liposomes containing bupivacaine have been increasingly utilized for their increased duration of action. Compared with bupivacaine HCl, local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine has shown to have an increase in duration of action and causes delay in peak plasma concentration. In this article, we attempt to review the clinical literature surrounding liposomal bupivacaine and its evolving role in perioperative analgesia. This new bupivacaine formation may have promising implications in postoperative pain control, resulting in increased patient satisfaction and a decrease in both hospital stay and opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). Although more studies are needed, the preliminary clinical trials suggest that liposomal bupivacaine has predictable pharmacokinetics, a similar side effect profile compared with bupivacaine HCl, and is effective in providing increased postoperative pain control.

A review of the compatibility of liposome bupivacaine with other drug products and commonly used implant materials

The compatibility of a medication with other drugs and implanted materials is an important factor impacting drug safety and efficacy. The liposomal formulation of the local anesthetic bupivacaine is designed to provide prolonged postsurgical analgesia. Its compatibility with other drugs and materials depends on the compatibility of the drug itself, along with the integrity of liposome and liposomal components. A series of studies was conducted to evaluate the compatibility of liposome bupivacaine with diluents, implanted materials, and other drugs likely to be encountered in the surgical settings in which it is used. Liposome bupivacaine demonstrated compatibility with diluents (normal saline, lactated Ringer's solution) and with implanted materials (silicone, stainless steel, titanium, polypropylene, expanded polytetrafluoro-ethylene), with little or no change in percent of free bupivacaine, packed particle volume, or particle size distribution; liposome bupivacaine exhibited little or no change in the properties of the test materials. Liposome bupivacaine had clinically meaningful interactions with other local anesthetics, including lidocaine, ropivacaine, mepivacaine, or bupivacaine HCl (at liposome bupivacaine to bupivacaine HCl ratios < 2:1), which resulted in substantial displacement and release of free bupivacaine from liposomes. Liposome bupivacaine may be locally administered after ≥ 20 minutes following local administration of lidocaine, ropivacaine, or mepivacaine. Co-administration of liposome bupivacaine and bupivacaine HCl into the same site should be at ratios ≥ 2:1. Interactions between liposome bupivacaine and epinephrine, corticosteroids, antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tranexamic acid, and opioid analgesics were not clinically meaningful; liposome bupivacaine may be safely co-administered with these agents. No adverse synergistic effects on liposome bupivacaine were observed in evaluations involving multiple medications compared with each drug's individual effects.

Liposomal extended-release bupivacaine for postsurgical analgesia

When physicians consider which analgesia to use postsurgery, the primary goal is to relieve pain with minimal adverse side effects. Bupivacaine, a commonly used analgesic, has been formulated into an aqueous suspension of multivesicular liposomes that provide long-lasting analgesia for up to 72 hours, while avoiding the adverse side effects of opioids. The increased efficacy of liposomal extended-release bupivacaine, compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, has promoted its usage in a variety of surgeries including hemorrhoidectomy, bunionectomy, inguinal hernia repair, total knee arthroplasty, and augmentation mammoplasty. However, like other bupivacaine formulations, the liposomal extended-release bupivacaine does have some side effects. In this brief review, we provide an update of the current knowledge in the use of bupivacaine for postsurgical analgesia.

An extended paIn relief trial utilizing the infiltration of a long-acting Multivesicular liPosome foRmulation Of bupiVacaine, EXPAREL (IMPROVE): a Phase IV health economic trial in adult patients undergoing ileostomy reversal

BACKGROUND

Opioid analgesics are effective for postsurgical pain but are associated with opioid-related adverse events, creating a significant clinical and economic burden. Gastrointestinal surgery patients are at high risk for opioid-related adverse events. We conducted a study to assess the impact of an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia regimen with liposome bupivacaine, compared with the standard of care (intravenous [IV] opioid-based, patient-controlled analgesia [PCA]) on postsurgical opioid use and health economic outcomes in patients undergoing ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter study, sequential cohorts of patients undergoing ileostomy reversal received IV opioid PCA (first cohort); or multimodal analgesia including a single intraoperative administration of liposome bupivacaine (second cohort). Rescue analgesia was available to all patients. Primary outcome measures were postsurgical opioid use, hospital length of stay, and hospitalization costs. Incidence of opioid-related adverse events was also assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled, underwent the planned surgery, and did not meet any intraoperative exclusion criteria; 16 received liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesia and eleven received the standard IV opioid PCA regimen. The multimodal regimen was associated with significant reductions in opioid use compared with the IV opioid PCA regimen (mean, 20 mg versus 112 mg; median, 6 mg versus 48 mg, respectively; P < 0.01), postsurgical length of stay (median, 3.0 days versus 5.1 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and hospitalization costs (geometric mean, $6482 versus $9282, respectively; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesic regimen resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in opioid consumption, shorter length of stay, and lower inpatient costs than an IV opioid-based analgesic regimen.