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.

Postoperative Multimodal Analgesia Strategy for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have substantially proven their merit in diminishing recuperation durations and mitigating postoperative adverse events in geriatric populations undergoing colorectal cancer procedures. Despite this, the pivotal aspect of postoperative pain control has not garnered the commensurate attention it deserves. Typically, employing a multimodal analgesia regimen that weaves together nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, local anesthetics, and nerve blocks stands paramount in curtailing surgical complications and facilitating reduced convalescence within hospital confines. Nevertheless, this integrative pain strategy is not devoid of pitfalls; the specter of organ dysfunction looms over the geriatric cohort, rooted in the abuse of analgesics or the complex interplay of polypharmacy. Revolutionary research is delving into alternative delivery and release modalities, seeking to allay the inadvertent consequences of analgesia and thereby potentially elevating postoperative outcomes for the elderly post-colorectal cancer surgery populace. This review examines the dual aspects of multimodal analgesia regimens by comparing their established benefits with potential limitations and offers insight into the evolving strategies of drug administration and release.

Real-world assessment of longitudinal opioid use and healthcare resource utilization in patients undergoing colorectal resection

Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) has been used in multimodal pain management regimens to improve postsurgical analgesia. This retrospective cohort analysis assessed clinical and economic outcomes of LB vs non-LB analgesia in minimally invasive colorectal resection surgery using real-world patient data from the IQVIA linkage claims databases. Patients who received LB were 1:1 matched to patients who did not receive LB (non-LB) via propensity scores. Outcomes included opioid use during the perioperative (2 weeks before surgery to 2 weeks after discharge), continued (>2 weeks to 3 months after discharge), and persistent (>3 months to 6 months after discharge) periods and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) during the first 3 months after discharge. Mean opioid consumption was lower in the LB (n = 4397) versus non-LB (n = 4397) cohort perioperatively (483 vs 538 morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]; P = 0.001) and after discharge within ∼3 months (222 vs 328 MMEs; P < 0.0001) and 3-6 months (245 vs 384 MMEs; P < 0.0001). The LB cohort had shorter mean length of stay (5.2 vs 5.7 days; P < 0.0001) and fewer inpatient readmissions (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; P < 0.0001), emergency department visits (OR, 0.78; P < 0.0001), and outpatient/office visits (OR, 0.91; P = 0.028) than the non-LB cohort 3 months after discharge. These data suggest use of LB in minimally invasive colorectal resection surgery may reduce perioperative and postdischarge opioid use as well as HRU. Although additional studies are needed to confirm these findings, this analysis provides valuable real-world data from large claims databases to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes that complement other types of retrospective and prospective studies.

Clinical impact of a multimodal pain management protocol for loop ileostomy reversal

PURPOSE

As introduced, multimodal pain management bundle for ileostomy reversal may be considered to reduce postoperative pain and hospital stay. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical efficacy of perioperative multimodal pain bundle for ileostomy.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery from April 2017 to March 2020 were analyzed. Sixty-seven patients received multimodal pain bundle protocol with ileostomy reversal (group A) and 41 patients underwent closure of ileostomy with conventional pain management (group B).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, diabetes mellitus, and smoking history, were not significantly different between the groups. The pain score on postoperative day 1 was significant lower in group A (visual analog scale, 2.6 ± 1.3 vs. 3.2 ± 1.2; P = 0.013). Overall consumption of opioid in group A was significant less than group B (9.7 ± 9.5 vs. 21.2 ± 8.8, P < 0.001). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in group A (2.3 ± 1.5 days vs. 4.1 ± 1.5 days, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in postoperative complication rate.

CONCLUSION

Multimodal pain protocol for ileostomy reversal could reduce postoperative pain, usage of opioid and hospital stay compared to conventional pain management.

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.

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.

Pain management after laparoscopic appendectomy: Comparative effectiveness of innovative pre-emptive analgesia using liposomal bupivacaine

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is standard of care for appendicitis in the US. Pain control that limits opioids is an important area of research given the opioid epidemic. This study examined post-appendectomy inpatient opioid use and pain scores following intraoperative use of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) versus non-liposomal bupivacaine.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 155 adults who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Patients were divided into four cohorts based on the analgesia administered: (i) bupivacaine hydrochloride (BH)± epinephrine; (ii) undiluted LB; (iii) LB diluted with normal saline; and (iv) LB diluted with BH.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic/clinical attributes, intra-operative findings, and post-operative pain scores were equivalent across cohorts. Post-operative pre-discharge opioid use was higher in the BH vs. LB cohorts (mean 60.4 vs. 46.0, 35.5, and 30.4 morphine milligram equivalents, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-emptive analgesia with LB during laparoscopic appendectomy can reduce inpatient opioid use without significantly increasing post-operative pain scores.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery: Perspective in Elder Women

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal convention first reported for colorectal and gynecologic procedures. The main benefits have been a shorter length of stay and reduced complications, leading to improved clinical outcomes and cost savings substantially. With increase in life expectancy, recent years has shown a significant rise in advanced age population, and similarly, a rise in age-related disorders requiring surgical management. Due to pathophysiological and metabolic changes in geriatric age group with increased incidence of medical comorbidities, there is higher risk of enhanced surgical stress response with undesirable postoperative morbidity, complications, prolonged immobility, and extended convalescence. The feasibility and effectiveness of ERAS protocols have been well researched and documented among all age groups, including the geriatric high-risk population.^[1] Adhering to ERAS protocols after colorectal surgery showed no significant difference in postoperative complications, hospital stay, or readmission rate among various age groups.^[2] A recent report mentions the safety and benefits following ERAS guidelines with reduced length of stay in elderly patients with short-level lumbar fusion surgery.^[3] The concept of prehabilitation has evolved as an integral part of ERAS to build up physiological reserve, especially in geriatric high-risk group, and to adapt better to surgical stress.^[4] High levels of compliance with ERAS interventions combined with prehabilitation can be achieved when a dedicated multidisciplinary team is involved in care of these high-risk patients.

Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block and Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

While spinal fusion in properly selected patients has been shown to be effective in improving pain, function, and quality of life, many patients continue to have reservations regarding the historical morbidity associated with surgical intervention.1 Open lumbar fusion surgery traditionally is perceived as an intervention that is associated with significant pain, recovery time, and risk. Even though most patients ultimately recover from this procedure, they are often left scarred with the psychological, economic, and social costs.2  To combat these negative associations with spinal fusion, neurosurgeons have begun to adopt adjunctive treatment modalities, including thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) blocks and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks to improve pain control and reduce postoperative opiate consumption.3,4 The TLIP block is done after the patient is intubated and prior to skin incision for our posterior lumbar cases. Recently, we have also begun placing TAP blocks for patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using exclusively liposomal bupivacaine, as commonly practiced for other abdominopelvic surgeries, to lengthen the duration of analgesia.5 We have found that these blocks have ameliorated both intraoperative and postoperative pain management.6  In this video, we present a case of a 65-yr-old female who presented with a grade 1 spondylolisthesis and neuroforaminal compression from L4 to S1, who was treated with combined TAP and TLIP block followed by a L4 to S1 ALIF with posterolateral instrumentation.  Informed written consent was obtained from the patient and her family.

A randomized-controlled trial comparing liposomal bupivacaine, plain bupivacaine, and the mixture of liposomal bupivacaine and plain bupivacaine in transversus abdominus plane block for postoperative analgesia for open abdominal hysterectomies

PURPOSE

Transversus abdominus plane (TAP) blocks are widely used for postoperative analgesia for abdominal surgical procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of plain bupivacaine, liposomal bupivacaine, and the mixture of plain bupivacaine with liposomal bupivacaine when used in a TAP block.

METHODS

This study was a single centre, prospective, patient-, observer-, and surgeon-blinded, randomized-controlled trial in which 90 patients undergoing an open abdominal hysterectomy with a midline incision were randomized to receive a TAP block with plain bupivacaine (group bupivacaine), liposomal bupivacaine (group liposomal), or a mixture of liposomal bupivacaine and plain bupivacaine (group mixture). Primary outcomes included time to the first rescue opioid analgesic and total opioid consumption during the first 72 postoperative hours. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, patient satisfaction, incidence of hemodynamic instability, presence of local anesthetic systemic toxicity, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The median [interquartile range] time to first opioid was 51 [28-66] min in group bupivacaine, 63 [44-102] min in group liposomal, and 51 [24-84] min in group mixture (P = 0.20). The median [interquartile range] total opioid consumption in the first 72 postoperative hours was 208 [155-270] mg in group bupivacaine, 203 [153-283] mg in group liposomal, and 202 [116-325] mg in group mixture (P = 0.92). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study at risk of being under-powered, the mixture of liposomal bupivacaine with plain bupivacaine for TAP block did not improve analgesia compared with either liposomal bupivacaine or plain bupivacaine on their own.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03250507); registered 5 April 2017.

Effect of liposomal bupivacaine on opioid requirements and length of stay in colorectal enhanced recovery pathways: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

Reducing postoperative opioid consumption is a key aim of enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery protocols. Potential solutions include anaesthetic techniques such as local infiltration of anaesthetic agents or transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) for colorectal resections, across a variety of anaesthetic techniques.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies assessing LB, administered by any anaesthetic technique. The primary outcome was postoperative morphine consumed (milligrams) and the secondary outcome was length of stay (days). A Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing LB versus non-LB analgesia was performed alongside meta-regression for different surgical approaches.

RESULTS

Twelve trials were included, with a total of 2512 patients. LB-based wound infiltration was most likely to reduce length of stay followed by TAP block with LB (sum under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] 85.55 and 70.26, respectively). TAP block with LB was most likely to reduce morphine requirements, followed by wound infiltration with LB (SUCRA 83.94 and 75.73, respectively). Compared to standard analgesia, LB-based wound infiltration reduced morphine usage (mean difference 36.64 mg, 95% credibility interval 15.64-59.20) and length of stay (mean difference 1.79 days, 95% credibility interval 0.59-3.81). On meta-regression, the findings held for minimally invasive surgery only.

CONCLUSION

Although LB-based interventions were associated with reduced postoperative morphine requirements and length of stay in this network meta-analysis, the confidence in these estimates was graded as very low. Further well-executed trials are required before LB can be recommended as a first-line agent.

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block With Liposomal Bupivacaine vs. Regular Anesthetics for Pain Control After Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Transverse abdominal plane (TAP) blocks are used to provide pain relief after abdominopelvic surgeries. The role of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) for TAP blocks is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to synthesize evidence on the efficacy of LB vs. regular anesthetics in improving outcomes of TAP block. Methods: PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Springer, and CENTRAL databases were searched up to July 24, 2020. Studies comparing LB with any regular anesthetic for TAP block for any surgical procedure and reporting total analgesic consumption (TAC) or pain scores were included. Results: Seven studies including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were reviewed. LB was compared with regular bupivacaine (RB) in all studies. A descriptive analysis was conducted for TAC due to heterogeneity in data presentation. There were variations in the outcomes of studies reporting TAC. Meta-analysis of pain scores indicated statistically significant reduction of pain with the use of LB at 12 h (MD: -0.89 95% CI: -1.44, -0.34 I2 = 0% p = 0.01), 24 h (MD: -0.64 95% CI: -1.21, -0.06 I2 = 0% p = 0.03), 48 h (MD: -0.40 95% CI: -0.77, 0.04 I2 = 0% p = 0.03) but not at 72 h (MD: -0.37 95% CI: -1.31, 0.56 I2 = 57% p = 0.43). Pooled analysis indicated no difference in the duration of hospital stay between LB and RB (MD: -0.18 95% CI: -0.49, 0.14 I2 = 61% p = 0.27). LB significantly reduced the number of days to first ambulation postsurgery (MD: -0.28 95% CI: -0.50, -0.06 I2 = 0% p = 0.01). Conclusions: Current evidence on the role of LB for providing prolonged analgesia with TAP blocks is unclear. Conflicting results have been reported for TAC. LB may result in a small reduction in pain scores up to 48 h but not at 72 h. Further, high-quality homogenous RCTs are needed to establish high-quality evidence.