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.