A Prospective Randomized Trial of Surgeon-Administered Intraoperative Transversus Abdominis Plane Block With Bupivacaine Against Liposomal Bupivacaine: The TINGLE 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.

Effectiveness of Liposomal Bupivacaine Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks improve pain control and reduce narcotic medication requirements in various surgical procedures. Liposomal bupivacaine may provide more sustained analgesia. This study compared pain-related outcomes between standard bupivacaine and liposomal bupivacaine TAP blocks after autologous breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors conducted a single-center, single-blinded randomized controlled trial between March of 2021 and December of 2022. Patients undergoing deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction in a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery pathway were randomized to receive intraoperative TAP blocks with either bupivacaine and epinephrine (control group) or liposomal bupivacaine, bupivacaine, and epinephrine (experimental group). Primary outcome was postoperative narcotic medication requirements, with secondary outcomes of pain scores, length of stay, and narcotic medication refills.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients met inclusion criteria (59 control patients and 58 experimental patients). Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, breast pathologic variables, surgery laterality, and immediate versus delayed reconstruction status were equivalent between groups. The control group had significantly higher average pain scores postoperatively (4.3 versus 3.6; P = 0.004). However, there were no significant differences in mean narcotic use (66.9 morphine milligram equivalents versus 60.2 morphine milligram equivalents; P = 0.47). Both length of stay and postoperative narcotic prescription refills were equivalent between groups (2.1 days versus 2.2 days, P = 0.55; 22% versus 17.2%, P = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of liposomal bupivacaine to the standard bupivacaine TAP block mixture in a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery protocol did not demonstrate a significant reduction in postoperative narcotic requirements after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction compared with standard bupivacaine alone. Patient-reported pain scores, however, were lower among liposomal bupivacaine patients after the initial 24 hours postoperatively and consistent with a longer duration of analgesia.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Analgesic Effectiveness of Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Plain Local Anesthetics for Abdominal Fascial Plane Blocks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Liposomal bupivacaine is reported to prolong the duration of analgesia when used for abdominal fascial plane blocks compared to plain local anesthetics; however, evidence from randomized trials is mixed. This meta-analysis aims to compare the analgesic effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine to plain local anesthetics in adults receiving abdominal fascial plane blocks.

METHODS

Randomized trials comparing liposomal bupivacaine and plain (nonliposomal) local anesthetics in abdominal fascial plane blocks were sought. The primary outcome was area under the curve rest pain between 24 to 72 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at individual timepoints (1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h); analgesic consumption at 0 to 24, 25 to 48, and 49 to 72 h; time to analgesic request; hospital stay duration; and opioid-related side effects. Data were pooled using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects method.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials encompassing 1,287 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 667; plain local anesthetics, 620) were included. The liposomal bupivacaine group received liposomal bupivacaine mixed with plain bupivacaine in 10 studies, liposomal bupivacaine alone in 5 studies, and both preparations in 1 three-armed study. No difference was observed between the two groups for area under the curve pain scores, with a standardized mean difference (95% CI) of -0.21 cm.h (-0.43 to 0.01; P = 0.058; I2 = 48%). Results were robust to subgroup analysis based on (1) potential conflict of interest and (2) mixing of plain local anesthetics with liposomal bupivacaine. The two groups were not different for any of the day 2 or day 3 secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests similar analgesic effectiveness between liposomal bupivacaine and plain local anesthetics when used for fascial plane block of the abdominal wall. The authors' analysis does not support an evidence-based preference for liposomal bupivacaine compared to plain local anesthetics for abdominal fascial plane blocks.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Liposomal bupivacaine versus conventional anesthetic or placebo for hemorrhoidectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liposome bupivacaine (LB) is a long-acting anesthetic to enhance postoperative analgesia. Studies evaluating the efficacy of the LB against an active comparator (bupivacaine or placebo) on acute postoperative pain control in hemorrhoidectomy procedures are few and heterogeneous. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LB's analgesic efficacy and side effects to conventional/placebo anesthetic in hemorrhoidectomy patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigating the use of LB after haemorrhoidectomy. We searched the literature published from the time of inception of the datasets to August 19, 2022. The electronic databases included English publications in Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus.

RESULTS

A total of 338 patients who underwent a hemorrhoidectomy procedure enrolled in three randomized clinical trials were included. The overall mean age was 45.84 years (SD ± 11.43), and there was a male predominance (53.55% male). In total 194 patients (52.2%) received LB and 144 (47.8%) received either bupivacaine or placebo. Pain scores at 72 h in the LB (199, 266, and 300 mg) were significantly lower than in the bupivacaine HCl group (p = 0.002). Compared to the bupivacaine/placebo group, the time to first use of opioids in the LB group was significantly longer at LB 199 mg (11 h vs. 9 h), LB 266 mg (19 h vs. 9 h), and LB 300 mg (19 h vs. 8 h) (p < 0.05). Moreover, compared to the bupivacaine/epinephrine group, it was significantly lower in the LB 266 mg group (3.7 vs. 10.2 mg) and at LB 300 mg (13 vs. 33 mg) (p < 0.05). Finally, regarding adverse effects, the conventional anesthetic/placebo group reported more pain in bowel movement than LB groups (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.31-5.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing LB to conventional anesthetic/placebo anesthetic for hemorrhoidectomy, we found a statistically significant reduction in pain through 72 h, decreased opioid requirements, and delayed time to first opioid use. Moreover, the conventional anesthetic/placebo group reported more pain in bowel movement than LB groups.

The postoperative analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus long-acting local anaesthetics for peripheral nerve and field blocks: A systematic review and meta-analysis, with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Liposomal bupivacaine is claimed by the manufacturer to provide analgesia for up to 72 h postoperatively.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus long-acting local anaesthetics for peripheral nerve or field blocks.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, among others, up to June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We retrieved randomised controlled trials comparing liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine, levobupivacaine or ropivacaine for peripheral nerve and field blocks after all types of surgery. Our primary endpoint was rest pain score (analogue scale 0 to 10) at 24 h. Secondary endpoints included rest pain score at 48 and 72 h, and morphine consumption at 24, 48 and 72 h.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven trials including 2122 patients were identified. Rest pain scores at 24 h were significantly reduced by liposomal bupivacaine with a mean difference (95% CI) of -0.9 (-1.4 to -0.4), I2  = 87%, P  < 0.001. This reduction in pain scores persisted at 48 h and 72 h with mean differences (95% CI) of -0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3), I2  = 82%, P  = 0.001 and -0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3), I2  = 80%, P  < 0.001, respectively. There were no differences in interval morphine consumption at 24 h ( P  = 0.15), 48 h ( P  = 0.15) and 72 h ( P  = 0.07). The quality of evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate level evidence that liposomal bupivacaine reduces rest pain scores by 0.9 out of 10 units, when compared with long-acting local anaesthetics at 24 hours after surgery, and by 0.7 up to 72 hours after surgery.

Feasibility of opioid-free surgery for inflammatory bowel disease

AIM

Patients undergoing colorectal surgery or those with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are particularly at risk for opioid-related complications and progression to long-term opioid dependence. The aim of this work is to explore the real-world possibility of perioperative opioid avoidance in colorectal surgery and IBD.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients aggregated from two prospective studies on multimodal postoperative pain control conducted at a single tertiary referral centre. All patients underwent major colorectal surgery with bowel resection. Patients with chronic preoperative opioid use were excluded. Opioid use was measured in oral morphine equivalents (OME) each postoperative day (POD) and cumulatively for the first 72 h.

RESULTS

Our cohort of 209 patients included 148 (71%) with IBD and 61 (29%) non-IBD patients. IBD patients required significantly more opioids cumulatively over the first 72 postoperative hours compared with non-IBD patients [median OME 77 mg (interquartile range 33-148 mg) vs. 4 mg (interquartile range 17-82 mg), respectively; p = 0.001]. Five percent of IBD patients achieved opioid-free postoperative pain control during the entire 72 h postoperative period compared with 12% of non-IBD patients. Only 7% of IBD patients avoided opioid use on POD 1 compared with 20% of non-IBD patients (p = 0.02); however the number of IBD patients increased to 16% on POD 2 then 40% on POD 3, closely resembling the non-IBD cohort at 49% (p = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

In the era of modern enhanced recovery protocols and minimally invasive techniques, we show that early postoperative opioid avoidance is feasible in a limited number of IBD patients after colorectal surgery.

Liposomal Bupivacaine Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks in Laparoscopic Colorectal Resections: A Single-Institution Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Transversus abdominis plane blocks improve postoperative pain after colon and rectal resections, but the benefits of liposomal bupivacaine use for these blocks have not been clearly demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether using liposomal bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane blocks improves postoperative pain and reduces opioid use after colorectal surgery compared to standard bupivacaine.

DESIGN

This study was a single-blinded, single-institution, prospective randomized controlled trial comparing liposomal bupivacaine to standard bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane blocks in patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single-institution academic medical center with 6 staff colorectal surgeons and 2 colorectal surgery fellows.

PATIENTS

Ninety-six patients aged 18 to 85 years were assessed for eligibility; 76 were included and randomly assigned to 2 groups of 38 patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients in the experimental group received liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane blocks, whereas the control group received standard bupivacaine blocks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was maximum pain score on postoperative day 2. Secondary outcomes included daily maximum and average pain scores in the 3 days after surgery, as well as daily morphine milligram equivalent use and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine blocks had lower maximum pain scores on the day of surgery (mean, 6.5 vs 7.7; p = 0.008). No other difference was found between groups with respect to maximum or average pain scores at any time point postoperatively, nor was there any difference in morphine milligram equivalents used or length of stay (median, 3.1 d).

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-institution study with only patients blinded to group assignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Liposomal bupivacaine use in transversus abdominis plane blocks for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections does not seem to improve postoperative pain, nor does it reduce narcotic use or decrease length of stay. Given its cost, use of liposomal bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane blocks is not justified for colon and rectal resections. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B979 .

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Identifier: NCT04781075.

BLOQUEOS TAP DE BUPIVACANA LIPOSOMAL EN RESECCIONES COLORRECTALES LAPAROSCPICAS UN ENSAYO CONTROLADO ALEATORIO DE UNA SOLA INSTITUCIN

ANTECEDENTES:Los bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen, mejoran el dolor posoperatorio después de las resecciones de colon y recto, pero los beneficios del uso de bupivacaína liposomal para estos bloqueos, no se han demostrado claramente.OBJETIVO:Investigar la eficacia de la inyección con tejido adiposo autólogo recién recolectado en fístulas anales criptoglandulares complejas.DISEÑO:Ensayo controlado, aleatorio, prospectivo, simple ciego, de una sola institución, que compara la bupivacaína liposomal con la bupivacaína estándar en bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen, en pacientes sometidos a resecciones electivas de colon y recto. Identificador de ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04781075.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro médico académico de una sola institución con seis cirujanos de plantilla y becarios de cirugía colorrectal.PACIENTES:Se evaluó la elegibilidad de 96 pacientes de 18 a 85 años; 76 fueron incluidos y aleatorizados en dos grupos de 38 pacientes.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes del grupo experimental recibieron bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen con bupivacaína liposomal, mientras que el grupo de control recibió bloqueos de bupivacaína estándar.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:El resultado primario fue la puntuación máxima de dolor en el segundo día posoperatorio. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron las puntuaciones máximas y medias diarias de dolor en los 3 días posteriores a la cirugía, así como el uso diario equivalente en miligramos de morfina y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria.RESULTADOS:Los pacientes que recibieron bloqueos de bupivacaína liposomal, tuvieron puntuaciones máximas de dolor más bajas, el día de la cirugía (media 6,5 frente a 7,7, p = 0,008). No hubo ninguna otra diferencia entre los grupos con respecto a las puntuaciones de dolor máximas o promedio en cualquier momento después de la operación, ni hubo ninguna diferencia en los equivalentes de miligramos de morfina utilizados o la duración de la estancia (mediana de 3,1 días).LIMITACIONES:Estudio de una sola institución con cegamiento de un solo paciente.CONCLUSIONES:El uso de bupivacaína liposomal en bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen, para pacientes sometidos a resecciones colorrectales laparoscópicas, no parece mejorar el dolor posoperatorio, ni reduce el uso de narcóticos ni la duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Dado su costo, el uso de bupivacaína liposomal en bloqueos TAP no está justificado para resecciones de colon y recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B797 . Traducción Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy.

Postoperative Analgesia in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols: Trends and Updates

Multimodal analgesia is an effective strategy to decrease opioid use after surgery and has been a mainstay of the surgical contribution to combat the opioid epidemic. Postoperative multimodal analgesia in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) continues to evolve as different adjuncts are added and removed based on the most up to date literature. This review examines recent trends in ERAS analgesia and what current evidence and research supports as well as those adjuncts that may not be as beneficial as once thought.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.