Scholarlink

Background <p>Postoperative<!--Query ID="Q1" Text="Please check if the article title is presented correctly. " Resolved="yes"--> acute pain management remains a critical challenge in orthopedic surgery. This study compared the analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus conventional ropivacaine when administered via an ultrasound-guided anterior sciatic nerve block in patients undergoing lower leg fracture surgery.</p> Methods <p>In<!--Query ID="Q2" Text="Please check if affiliations is captured correctly. " Resolved="yes"--> a randomized, double-blinded trial, eighty adult patients scheduled for elective open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of lower leg fractures. Patients were randomized into Group LB (20 mL liposomal bupivacaine, 266&#xa0;mg) or Group R (20 mL 0.5% ropivacaine). The primary outcome was postoperative pain scores (Visual Analog Scale, VAS) at 6&#xa0;h (T1), 24&#xa0;h (T2), 48&#xa0;h (T3), and 72&#xa0;h (T4). Secondary outcomes included perioperative opioid use, motor block onset time, Postoperative hospital stay, functional recovery (Barthel Index), and complications.</p> Results <p>Group<!--Query ID="Q3" Text="Please confirm if the author names are presented accurately. " Resolved="yes"--> LB exhibited significantly lower VAS scores at T2 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), T3 (<i>p</i> = 0.007), and T4 (<i>p</i> = 0.042), though with higher scores at T1 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Postoperative hospital stay was shorter in Group LB (<i>p</i> = 0.021), and functional recovery at discharge (Barthel Index) was superior (<i>p</i> = 0.020). No significant differences in perioperative opioid use or complication rates were observed.</p> Conclusions <p>Compared to ropivacaine, liposomal bupivacaine administered via anterior sciatic nerve block provided prolonged postoperative analgesia and was associated with improved functional recovery and shorter hospital stay in patients undergoing lower leg fracture surgery.</p> Trial registration <p>The study protocol was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (<a href="http://www.chictr.org.cn">http://www.chictr.org.cn</a>, ChiCTR2400084397, 15/05/2024).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Application of anterior sciatic nerve block with liposomal bupivacaine in lower leg fracture surgery: a randomized clinical trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月23日

查看全文
  • Yue Li,
  • Libin Zhao,
  • Xinyi Shen,
  • Bin Chai,
  • Li Zhan

摘要

Background

Postoperative acute pain management remains a critical challenge in orthopedic surgery. This study compared the analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus conventional ropivacaine when administered via an ultrasound-guided anterior sciatic nerve block in patients undergoing lower leg fracture surgery.

Methods

In a randomized, double-blinded trial, eighty adult patients scheduled for elective open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of lower leg fractures. Patients were randomized into Group LB (20 mL liposomal bupivacaine, 266 mg) or Group R (20 mL 0.5% ropivacaine). The primary outcome was postoperative pain scores (Visual Analog Scale, VAS) at 6 h (T1), 24 h (T2), 48 h (T3), and 72 h (T4). Secondary outcomes included perioperative opioid use, motor block onset time, Postoperative hospital stay, functional recovery (Barthel Index), and complications.

Results

Group LB exhibited significantly lower VAS scores at T2 (p < 0.001), T3 (p = 0.007), and T4 (p = 0.042), though with higher scores at T1 (p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital stay was shorter in Group LB (p = 0.021), and functional recovery at discharge (Barthel Index) was superior (p = 0.020). No significant differences in perioperative opioid use or complication rates were observed.

Conclusions

Compared to ropivacaine, liposomal bupivacaine administered via anterior sciatic nerve block provided prolonged postoperative analgesia and was associated with improved functional recovery and shorter hospital stay in patients undergoing lower leg fracture surgery.

Trial registration

The study protocol was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2400084397, 15/05/2024).