↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
2 blogs
20 X users
2 Facebook pages


128 Dimensions

Readers on

351 Mendeley
Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011419.pub2
Pubmed ID

Thomas W Hamilton, Vassilis Athanassoglou, Stephen Mellon, Louise H Strickland, Marialena Trivella, David Murray, Hemant G Pandit


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. To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain. 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 We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched clinical trials databases for ongoing trials. 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. 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. 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 (I(2) = 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 351 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 351 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 10%
Student > Master 35 10%
Other 33 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 8%
Other 89 25%
Unknown 102 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 133 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 3%
Unspecified 8 2%
Psychology 7 2%
Other 38 11%
Unknown 123 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 425,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.