Liposomal versus plain bupivacaine for pain control following vaginal reconstruction.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Canadian Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2023-10-01
Stephanie Jensen, Akin S Amasyali, Mohamed Keheila, Ashley Feldkamp, Jonathan Maldonado, Hillary J Wagner, D Duane Baldwin, Andrea Staack
{"title":"Liposomal versus plain bupivacaine for pain control following vaginal reconstruction.","authors":"Stephanie Jensen,&nbsp;Akin S Amasyali,&nbsp;Mohamed Keheila,&nbsp;Ashley Feldkamp,&nbsp;Jonathan Maldonado,&nbsp;Hillary J Wagner,&nbsp;D Duane Baldwin,&nbsp;Andrea Staack","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a depot formulation of bupivacaine, which releases the drug over 72 hours to prolong local pain control. This retrospective study compares the effect of using LB versus plain bupivacaine on postoperative pain control, length of hospital stay and cost among patients undergoing vaginal reconstructive surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients who underwent vaginal reconstructive surgery with levatorplasty and received an injection of 20 cc of either plain bupivacaine or LB for pudendal nerve block were included. The primary outcomes included postoperative narcotic use and subjective pain score. The secondary outcome was postoperative length of stay. Comparisons between groups were performed using the T test, Mann Whitney U and Chi-square tests with p < 0.05 considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between June 2016 and December 2021, 25 patients had received LB as a pudendal nerve block and 25 had received plain bupivacaine. Demographics between groups were similar. There was no difference between postoperative morphine equivalent dose (MED) for plain bupivacaine versus LB (25.3 ± 65.8 vs. 24.9 ± 31.7 MED; p = 0.159) or length of hospital stay (15.8 ± 12.0 hours vs. 23.8 ± 20.0; p = 0.094). Furthermore, subjective pain was also similar between groups (0 vs. 1.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.68), (4.6 ± 2.3 vs. 4.9 ± 2.0 average POD 1 pain, p = 0.534) and (4.3 ± 2.1 for vs. 4.9 ± 2.1 average POD 2 pain, p = 0.373).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LB is not superior to plain bupivacaine for controlling pain following vaginal reconstructive surgery, and justification for the exponentially greater cost of LB is not supported. Prospective investigations with larger sample sizes are needed to determine the optimal pain management for levatorplasty in vaginal reconstructive surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":56323,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Urology","volume":"30 5","pages":"11703-11707"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a depot formulation of bupivacaine, which releases the drug over 72 hours to prolong local pain control. This retrospective study compares the effect of using LB versus plain bupivacaine on postoperative pain control, length of hospital stay and cost among patients undergoing vaginal reconstructive surgery.

Materials and methods: Patients who underwent vaginal reconstructive surgery with levatorplasty and received an injection of 20 cc of either plain bupivacaine or LB for pudendal nerve block were included. The primary outcomes included postoperative narcotic use and subjective pain score. The secondary outcome was postoperative length of stay. Comparisons between groups were performed using the T test, Mann Whitney U and Chi-square tests with p < 0.05 considered significant.

Results: Between June 2016 and December 2021, 25 patients had received LB as a pudendal nerve block and 25 had received plain bupivacaine. Demographics between groups were similar. There was no difference between postoperative morphine equivalent dose (MED) for plain bupivacaine versus LB (25.3 ± 65.8 vs. 24.9 ± 31.7 MED; p = 0.159) or length of hospital stay (15.8 ± 12.0 hours vs. 23.8 ± 20.0; p = 0.094). Furthermore, subjective pain was also similar between groups (0 vs. 1.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.68), (4.6 ± 2.3 vs. 4.9 ± 2.0 average POD 1 pain, p = 0.534) and (4.3 ± 2.1 for vs. 4.9 ± 2.1 average POD 2 pain, p = 0.373).

Conclusion: LB is not superior to plain bupivacaine for controlling pain following vaginal reconstructive surgery, and justification for the exponentially greater cost of LB is not supported. Prospective investigations with larger sample sizes are needed to determine the optimal pain management for levatorplasty in vaginal reconstructive surgery.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脂质体与布比卡因用于阴道重建术后疼痛控制。
简介:脂质体布比卡因(LB)是布比卡因的一种储备制剂,可在72小时内释放药物,延长局部疼痛控制。这项回顾性研究比较了在接受阴道重建手术的患者中使用LB和普通布比卡因对术后疼痛控制、住院时间和费用的影响。材料和方法:包括接受阴道重建手术和提肌成形术并注射20毫升纯布比卡因或LB用于阴部神经阻滞的患者。主要结果包括术后麻醉药品的使用和主观疼痛评分。次要结果是术后住院时间。使用T检验、Mann-Whitney U检验和卡方检验进行组间比较,p<0.05被认为是显著的。结果:在2016年6月至2021年12月期间,25名患者接受了LB阴部神经阻滞,25名接受了普通布比卡因。各组之间的人口统计数据相似。术后单纯布比卡因的吗啡当量剂量(MED)与LB(25.3±65.8 vs.24.9±31.7 MED;p=0.159)或住院时间(15.8±12.0小时vs.23.8±20.0;p=0.094)之间没有差异。此外,两组之间的主观疼痛也相似(0 vs.1.6±2.6,p=0.68),(4.6±2.3 vs.4.9±2.0平均POD 1疼痛,p=0.534)和(4.3±2.1 vs.4.9?.1平均POD 2疼痛,p=0.373)。需要更大样本量的前瞻性研究来确定阴道重建手术中提肌成形术的最佳疼痛管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Urology
Canadian Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The CJU publishes articles of interest to the field of urology and related specialties who treat urologic diseases.
期刊最新文献
Single-port robotic laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy: surgical technique and clinical outcomes. Clinical implications of tumor laterality in renal cell carcinoma. Hypogonadism, frailty, and postoperative outcomes among men undergoing partial nephrectomy. Illuminating the use of photodynamic therapy in urologic oncology. Legends in Urology v31I06.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1