Efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine in port site injections on postoperative pain within enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery program: a randomized clinical trial

Postoperative pain scores and opioid use after standard bupivacaine vs. liposomal bupivacaine regional blocks for abdominal cancer surgery: A propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

Fascial plane blocks (FPBs) are widely used for abdominal surgery with the assumption that liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is more effective than standard bupivacaine (SB).

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective cohort study of patients administered FPBs with LB or SB ​+ ​admixtures (dexamethasone/dexmedetomidine) for open abdominal cancer surgery. Propensity score matching generated a 2:1 (LB:SB) matched cohort. Opioid use (mg oral morphine equivalents, OME) and severe pain (≥3 pain scores ≥7 in a 24-h period) were compared.

RESULTS

Opioid use was >150 ​mg OME in 19.9 ​% (29/146) LB and 16.4 ​% (12/73) SB patients (p ​= ​0.586). Severe pain was experienced by 44 ​% (64/146) LB and 53 ​% (39/73) SB patients (p ​= ​0.198). On multivariable analysis, SB vs LB choice was not associated with high opioid volume >150 ​mg or severe pain.

CONCLUSIONS

FPBs with standard bupivacaine were not associated with higher 72-h opioid use or more severe pain compared to liposomal bupivacaine.

American society for metabolic and bariatric surgery: intra-operative care pathway for minimally invasive Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Clinical care pathways help guide and provide structure to clinicians and providers to improve healthcare delivery and quality. The Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Committee (QIPS) of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has previously published care pathways for the performance of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and pre-operative care of patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

OBJECTIVE

This current RYGB care pathway was created to address intraoperative care, defined as care occurring on the day of surgery from the preoperative holding area, through the operating room, and into the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).

METHODS

PubMed queries were performed from January 2001 to December 2019 and reviewed according to Level of Evidence regarding specific key questions developed by the committee.

RESULTS

Evidence-based recommendations are made for care of patients undergoing RYGB including the pre-operative holding area, intra-operative management and performance of RYGB, and concurrent procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This document may provide guidance based on recent evidence to bariatric surgeons and providers for the intra-operative care for minimally invasive RYGB.

Propensity score matched analysis of postoperative nausea and pain after one anastomosis gastric bypass (MGB/OAGB) versus sleeve gastrectomy (SG)

The aim of our study was to assess and compare postoperative nausea and pain after one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Patients undergoing OAGB and LSG at our institution between November 2018 and November 2021 have been prospectively asked to report postoperative nausea and pain on a numeric analogic scale. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed to collect scores of these symptoms at the 6th and 12th postoperative hour. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate effect of type of surgery on postoperative nausea and pain scores. To adjust for baseline differences between cohorts, a propensity score algorithm was used to match LSG patients to MGB/OAGB patients in a 1:1 ratio with a 0.1 tolerance. A total number of 228 (119 SGs and 109 OAGBs) subjects were included in our study. Nausea after OAGB was significantly less severe than after LSG both at the 6th and 12th hour assessment; pain was less strong after OAGB at the 6th hour but not after 12 h. Fifty-three individuals had a rescue administration of metoclopramide after LSG and 34 after OAGB (44.5% vs 31.2%, p = 0.04); additional painkillers were required by 41 patients after LSG and 23 after OAGB (34.5% vs 21.1%, p = 0.04). Early postoperative nausea was significantly less severe after OAGB, while pain was comparable especially at the 12th hour.

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.

Anesthesia and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Bariatric Surgery

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society published guidelines for bariatric surgery reviewing the evidence and providing specific care recommendations. These guidelines emphasize preoperative nutrition, multimodal analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, anesthetic technique, nutrition, and mobilization. Several studies have since evaluated these pathways, showing them to be safe and effective at decreasing hospital length of stay and postoperative nausea and vomiting. This article emphasizes anesthetic management in the perioperative period and outlines future directions, including the application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery principles in patients with extreme obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disease and standardization of the pathways to decrease heterogeneity.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in Bariatric Surgery

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is now widely applied in bariatric surgeries and other surgical procedures. The ERAS program in bariatric surgery consists of various components similar to that in colorectal surgery or other procedures. The major concept of the ERAS protocol relies on a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach to resolve various problems after surgical treatment. The key principles of the ERAS program in bariatric surgery include patient education, opioid-sparing multimodal pain management, prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting, goal-directed fluid therapy, and minimizing insulin resistance and catabolism. Several guidelines and studies, including randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews, have advocated for the ERAS program in bariatric surgery, which has consistently shown advantages in shortening hospital stay without increasing morbidity. The systematic application of the ERAS program in bariatric patients results in less pain and early recovery and should be routinely recommended.

Bupivacaine liposome use reduces length of post-anesthesia care unit stay and postoperative narcotic use following robotic inguinal herniorrhaphy

In the current opioid crisis, multimodal analgesic protocols should be considered to reduce or eliminate narcotic usage in the postoperative period. We assess the impact of bupivacaine liposome used along with a standard analgesia protocol following robotic inguinal hernia repair. A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained data including robotic inguinal hernia repairs (IHR) by two surgeons in the United States was performed. Within a multimodal analgesic protocol, local anesthetic was administered intraoperatively. One group received a mix of bupivacaine and bupivacaine liposome (BL), and one received standard bupivacaine (SB). Recovery room and home opiate doses were recorded. Primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) and postoperative medication requirements. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. 122 robotic IHRs were included; 55 received BL and 67 received SB. Hospital LOS (hours) was reduced in the BL group (2.8 ± 1.1 vs 3.5 ± 1.2; p = 0.0003). There was no significant difference in recovery room parenteral MME requirements between the groups; however, BL group had less oral MME requirements (5.0 ± 6.5 MME vs. 8.1 ± 6.9 MME, p = 0.02). The BL group had a higher rate of zero opiate doses at home (44% vs 5%, p = 0.0005). Of those that did require opiates at home, there was a significant reduction in number of narcotic pills used by the BL compared to the SB group (median 1 vs 5, respectively; p < 0.0001). Intraoperative administration of BL as part of a pain management protocol may decrease length of hospital stay, and reduce or eliminate the need for narcotic analgesic use at home.

Osmotically balanced, large unilamellar liposomes that enable sustained bupivacaine release for prolonged pain relief in in vivo rat models

To efficiently prolong analgesic effects, we developed osmotically balanced, large unilamellar liposomes (~ 6 μm in diameter) in which highly concentrated bupivacaine (up to 30 mg/mL) was encapsulated, and their sustained bupivacaine release was highly effective in relieving postoperative pain over 24 h in a rat model. Our reverse-phase evaporation method based on non-toxic alcohol, ethanol, enabled simple and cost-effective production of bupivacaine-loaded liposomes, of which osmotic pressure was readily balanced to improve the structural stability of the enlarged unilamellar liposomes along with extension of their shelf life (> a month). The in vitro release profile verified that the release duration of the bupivacaine-loaded liposomes extended up to 6 days. For the in vivo study, male Sprague–Dawley rats were used for the incisional pain model, simulating postoperative pain, and the mechanical withdrawal threshold (MWT) was measured using a von Frey filament. Compared to the control group that received intraplantar administration of normal saline, the group of liposomal bupivacaine showed that the initially increased MWT gradually decreased up to 24 h, and importantly, the analgesic effect of the liposomal bupivacaine was maintained 6 times longer than that of bupivacaine only, proving the potential of effective long-acting anesthetics.

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.

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.