Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Bupivacaine Hydrochloride with Lidocaine during Midurethral Sling Placement: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Prescription Opioid Use for Acute Pain and Persistent Opioid Use After Gynecologic Surgery: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the amount of opioid medication used by patients and the prevalence of persistent opioid use after discharge for gynecologic surgery for benign indications.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to October 2020.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Studies with data on gynecologic surgical procedures for benign indications and the amount of outpatient opioids consumed, or the incidence of either persistent opioid use or opioid-use disorder postsurgery were included. Two reviewers independently screened citations and extracted data from eligible studies.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (37 articles) met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from 35 studies; 23 studies included data on opioids consumed after hospital discharge, and 12 studies included data on persistent opioid use after gynecologic surgery. Average morphine milligram equivalents (MME) used in the 14 days after discharge were 54.0 (95% CI 39.9-68.0, seven tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) across all gynecologic surgery types, 35.0 (95% CI 0-75.12, 4.5 tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) after a vaginal hysterectomy, 59.5 (95% CI 44.4-74.6, eight tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) after laparoscopic hysterectomy, and 108.1 (95% CI 80.5-135.8, 14.5 tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) after abdominal hysterectomy. Patients used 22.4 MME (95% CI 12.4-32.3, three tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) within 24 hours of discharge after laparoscopic procedures without hysterectomy and 79.8 MME (95% CI 37.1-122.6, 10.5 tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) from discharge to 7 or 14 days postdischarge after surgery for prolapse. Persistent opioid use occurred in about 4.4% of patients after gynecologic surgery, but this outcome had high heterogeneity due to variation in populations and definitions of the outcome.

CONCLUSION

On average, patients use the equivalent of 15 or fewer 5-mg oxycodone tablets (or equivalent) in the 2 weeks after discharge after major gynecologic surgery for benign indications. Persistent opioid use occurred in 4.4% of patients who underwent gynecologic surgery for benign indications. Our findings could help surgeons minimize overprescribing and reduce medication diversion or misuse.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020146120.

Peripheral Regional Anesthesia Using Local Anesthetics: Old Wine in New Bottles?

During the past decade, numerous efforts were undertaken aiming at prolonging the analgesic effect of regional anesthesia. With the development of extended-release formulations and enhanced selectivity for nociceptive sensory neurons, a very promising contribution to the development of pain medications has been achieved. At present, liposomal bupivacaine is the most popular, non-opioid, controlled drug delivery system, but its duration of action, which is still controversially discussed, and its expensiveness have decreased initial enthusiasm. Continuous techniques can be seen as an elegant alternative for providing a prolonged duration of analgesia, but for logistic or anatomical reasons, they are not always the best choice. Therefore, focus has been directed towards the perineural and/or intravenous addition of old and established substances. As for perineural application, most of these so-called 'adjuvants' are used outside their indication, and their pharmacological efficacy is often not or only poorly understood. This review aims to summarize the recent developments for prolonging the duration of regional anesthesia. It will also discuss the potential harmful interactions and side effects of frequently used analgesic mixtures.

The effect of liposomal bupivacaine for surgical wound infiltration: A meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) has consistently been considered a potential analgesic for surgical wound infiltration. However, the evidence of its analgesic effectiveness remains unclear. In this meta-analysis, we attempted to identify the potential clinical role of LB wound infiltration in different surgical procedures. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LB with non-liposomal local anaesthetics and placebos were retrieved from six electronic databases. The primary outcome was cumulative morphine equivalent consumption within 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Approximately 2659 patients from 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the control, LB-wound infiltration did not reduce the postoperative morphine consumption at 24 hours (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.60 mg; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -2.78 to 1.59 mg; P = 0.54), 48 hours (WMD, -1.00 mg; 97.5% CI, -3.23 to 1.24; P = 0.32) or 72 hours (WMD, 0.50 mg; 97.5% CI, -0.67 to 1.67; P = 0.33). Similarly, secondary outcome analysis did not reveal any additional benefits of LB in any other pain-related outcomes. LB was not associated with any adverse effects. Overall, LB does not appear to improve the postoperative analgesic, rehabilitation, or safety outcomes. Current evidence does not support the routine use of LB for wound infiltration following surgical procedures.

AUGS-IUGA Joint Clinical Consensus Statement on Enhanced Recovery After Urogynecologic Surgery: Developed by the Joint Writing Group of the International Urogynecological Association and the American Urogynecologic Society. Individual writing group members are noted in the Acknowledgements section

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) evidence-based protocols for perioperative care can lead to improvements in clinical outcomes and cost savings. This article aims to present consensus recommendations for the optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing urogynecological surgery.

METHODS

A review of meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, large nonrandomized studies, and review articles was conducted via PubMed and other databases for ERAS and urogynecological surgery. ERAS protocol components were established, and then quality of the evidence was both graded and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. These recommendations were developed and endorsed by the writing group, which is comprised of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association members.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented accordingly. The components of ERAS with a high level of evidence to support their use include fasting for 6 h and taking clear fluids up to 2 h preoperatively, euvolemia, normothermia, surgical site preparation, antibiotic and antithrombotic prophylaxis, strong antiemetics and dexamethasone to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting, multimodal analgesia and restrictive use of opiates, use of chewing gum to reduce ileus, removal of catheter as soon as feasible after surgery and avoiding systematic use of drains/vaginal packs.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendations for a urogynecology-relevant ERAS perioperative care pathway are presented in this consensus review. There are several elements of ERAS with strong evidence of benefit in urogynecological surgery.

Preoperative pudendal block with liposomal and plain bupivacaine reduces pain associated with posterior colporrhaphy: a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pelvic reconstructive surgery may cause significant postoperative pain, especially with posterior colporrhaphy, contributing to a longer hospital stay and increased pain medication utilization. Regional blocks are being increasingly utilized in gynecologic surgery to improve postoperative pain and decrease opioid usage, yet preoperative pudendal blocks have not been used routinely during posterior colporrhaphy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the effect of preoperative regional pudendal nerve block using a combination of 1.3% liposomal and 0.25% plain bupivacaine vs 0.25% plain bupivacaine alone on vaginal pain after posterior colporrhaphy on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. We hypothesized that there would be a reduction in vaginal pain scores for the study group vs the control group over the first 72 hours.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial that included patients undergoing a posterior colporrhaphy, either independently or in conjunction with other vaginal or abdominal reconstructive procedures. Patients were block randomized to receive 20 mL of either a combination of 1.3% liposomal and 0.25% plain bupivacaine (study) or 20 mL of 0.25% plain bupivacaine (control) in a regional pudendal block before the start of surgery. Double blinding was achieved by covering four 5-mL syringes containing the randomized local anesthetic. After induction of anesthesia, a pudendal nerve block was performed per standard technique (5 mL superiorly and 5 mL inferiorly each ischial spine) using a pudendal kit. The primary outcome was to evaluate postoperative vaginal pain using a visual analog scale on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. Secondary outcomes included total analgesic medication usage through postoperative day 3, postoperative voiding and defecatory dysfunction, and impact of vaginal pain on quality of life factors.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were enrolled (60 in each group). There were no significant differences in demographic data, including baseline vaginal pain (P=.88). Postoperative vaginal pain scores were significantly lower in the combined liposomal and bupivacaine group at all time points vs the plain bupivacaine group. Median pain scores for the study and control groups, respectively, were 0 (0-2) and 2 (0-4) for postoperative day 1 (P=.03), 2 (1-4) and 3 (2-5) for postoperative day 2 (P=.05), and 2 (1-4) and 3 (2-5) for postoperative day 3 (P=.02). Vaginal pain scores increased from postoperative day 1 to postoperative days 2 and 3 in both groups. There was a significant decrease in ibuprofen (P=.01) and acetaminophen (P=.03) usage in the study group; however, there was no difference between groups in total opioid consumption through postoperative day 3 (P=.82). There was no difference in successful voiding trials (study 72%, control 82%, P=.30), return of bowel function (P>.99), or quality of life factors (sleep, stress, mood, and activity).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative regional pudendal block with a combination of liposomal and plain bupivacaine provided more effective vaginal pain control than plain bupivacaine alone for reconstructive surgery that included posterior colporrhaphy. Given the statistically significant decrease in vaginal pain in the study group, this block may be considered as a potential adjunct for multimodal pain reduction in this patient population.

The Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine for Opioid and Pain Reduction: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background The opioid crisis has prompted surgeons to search for alternative postoperative methods of analgesia. Liposomal bupivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic formulation used for pain, potentially reducing opioid use. Evaluation of liposomal bupivacaine as a viable alternative for pain management is needed. The objective was to assess the efficacy of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of liposomal bupivacaine in postoperative pain management and opioid consumption. Material and Methods The authors extracted RCTs comparing liposomal bupivacaine versus placebo or active comparators for postoperative pain or opioid reduction from PubMED/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Exclusion criteria included nonhuman studies, non-RCTs, pooled studies, and inability to access full text. The following variables were abstracted: surgical specialty, number of subjects, pain and opioid outcomes, and authors' financial conflicts of interest. Results We identified 77 published RCTs, of which 63 studies with a total of 6770 subjects met inclusion criteria. Liposomal bupivacaine did not demonstrate significant pain relief compared to placebo or active agents in 74.58% of RCTs. Of the studies evaluating narcotic use, liposomal bupivacaine did not show a reduction in opioid consumption in 85.71% of RCTs. Liposomal bupivacaine, when compared to standard bupivacaine or another active agent, yielded no reduction in opioid use in 83.33% and 100.00% of studies, respectively. Clinical trials with a financial conflict of interest relating to the manufacturer of liposomal bupivacaine were significantly more likely to show pain relief (OR: 14.31 [95% CI, 2.8, 73.10], P = 0.0001) and decreased opioid consumption (OR: 12.35 [95% CI 1.40, 109.07], P = 0.0237). Of the 265 unpublished RCTs on ClinicalTrials.gov, 47.54% were withdrawn, terminated, suspended, or completed without study results available. Conclusions The efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine for providing superior postoperative pain control relative to placebo or another active agent is not supported by a majority of RCTs. Underreporting of trial results and bias due to underlying financial relationships amongst authors are two major concerns that should be considered when evaluating the available evidence.

The analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride for the prevention of postoperative pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE

Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a prolonged release formulation of conventional bupivacaine designed for prolonging local or peripheral regional single injection anesthesia. To this day, the benefit of the new substance on relevant end points is discussed controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative pain scores and morphine consumption between patients treated with LB and bupivacaine hydrochloride in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified in Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Web of Science up to May 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methodology. Primary end points were the mean pain score difference and the relative morphine equivalent (MEQ) consumption expressed as the ratio of means (ROM) 24 and 72 hours postoperatively.

FINDINGS

23 RCTs including 1867 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. The mean pain score difference at 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the LB group, at -0.37 (95% CI -0.56 to -0.19). The relative MEQ consumption after 24 hours was also significantly lower in the LB group, at 0.85 (0.82 to 0.89). At 72 hours, the pain score difference was not significant at -0.25 (-0.71 to 0.20) and the MEQ ratio was 0.85 (0.77 to 0.95).

CONCLUSION

The beneficial effect on pain scores and opioid consumption was small but not clinically relevant, despite statistical significance. The effect was stable among all studies, indicating that it is independent of the application modality.

Perineural Liposomal Bupivacaine Is Not Superior to Nonliposomal Bupivacaine for Peripheral Nerve Block Analgesia

BACKGROUND

Liposomal bupivacaine is purported to extend analgesia of peripheral nerve blocks when administered perineurally. However, evidence of the clinical effectiveness of perineural liposomal bupivacaine is mixed. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of perineural liposomal bupivacaine in improving peripheral nerve block analgesia as compared with nonliposomal local anesthetics.

METHODS

The authors identified randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness of peripheral nerve block analgesic that compared liposomal bupivacaine with nonliposomal local anesthetics. The primary outcome was the difference in area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the pooled 24- to 72-h rest pain severity scores. Secondary outcomes included postoperative analgesic consumption, time to first analgesic request, incidence of opioid-related side effects, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, liposomal bupivacaine side effects, and functional recovery. AUC pain scores were interpreted in light of a minimal clinically important difference of 2.0 cm · h.

RESULTS

Nine trials (619 patients) were analyzed. When all trials were pooled, AUC pain scores ± SD at 24 to 72 h were 7.6 ± 4.9 cm · h and 6.6 ± 4.6 cm · h for nonliposomal and liposomal bupivacaine, respectively. As such, perineural liposomal bupivacaine provided a clinically unimportant benefit by improving the AUC (95% CI) of 24- to 72-h pain scores by 1.0 cm · h (0.5 to 1.6; P = 0.003) compared with nonliposomal bupivacaine. Excluding an industry-sponsored trial rendered the difference between the groups nonsignificant (0.7 cm · h [-0.1 to 1.5]; P = 0.100). Secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any additional benefits to liposomal bupivacaine in pain severity at individual timepoints up to 72 h, analgesic consumption, time to first analgesic request, opioid-related side effects, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and functional recovery. No liposomal bupivacaine side effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineural liposomal bupivacaine provided a statistically significant but clinically unimportant improvement in the AUC of postoperative pain scores compared with plain local anesthetic. Furthermore, this benefit was rendered nonsignificant after excluding an industry-sponsored trial, and liposomal bupivacaine was found to be not different from plain local anesthetics for postoperative pain and all other analgesic and functional outcomes. High-quality evidence does not support the use of perineural liposomal bupivacaine over nonliposomal bupivacaine for peripheral nerve blocks.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Clinical Effectiveness of Liposomal Bupivacaine Administered by Infiltration or Peripheral Nerve Block to Treat Postoperative Pain

The authors provide a comprehensive summary of all randomized, controlled trials (n = 76) involving the clinical administration of liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel; Pacira Pharmaceuticals, USA) to control postoperative pain that are currently published. When infiltrated surgically and compared with unencapsulated bupivacaine or ropivacaine, only 11% of trials (4 of 36) reported a clinically relevant and statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome favoring liposomal bupivacaine. Ninety-two percent of trials (11 of 12) suggested a peripheral nerve block with unencapsulated bupivacaine provides superior analgesia to infiltrated liposomal bupivacaine. Results were mixed for the 16 trials comparing liposomal and unencapsulated bupivacaine, both within peripheral nerve blocks. Overall, of the trials deemed at high risk for bias, 84% (16 of 19) reported statistically significant differences for their primary outcome measure(s) compared with only 14% (4 of 28) of those with a low risk of bias. The preponderance of evidence fails to support the routine use of liposomal bupivacaine over standard local anesthetics.

Bupivacaine Pharmacokinetics and Breast Milk Excretion of Liposomal Bupivacaine Administered After Cesarean Birth

Very little plasma bupivacaine was transferred into breast milk after liposomal bupivacaine wound infiltration in patients who had undergone cesarean delivery.

To evaluate bupivacaine concentrations in maternal plasma and transfer into breast milk in women undergoing liposomal bupivacaine infiltration in the transversus abdominis plane after cesarean birth.