|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of local liposomal bupivacaine infiltration and traditional cocktail analgesia for pain management in total hip arthroplasty (THA).PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Medline, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria: Participants: patients planned for a THA with a diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis. Interventions: liposomal bupivacaine was administrated in the experimental groups for pain control. Comparisons: the control groups received local infiltration of traditional analgesics. Outcomes: pain scores, opioids consumption, and postoperative complications among the patients. Study design: randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted by Stata 11.0 software. Systematic review registration number is CRD42017120981.Four articles involving 308 participants were included. Current meta-analysis revealed that there were significant differences regarding postoperative pain score at 12 hours (standard mean difference [SMD] = −0.496, 95% CI: −0.717 to −0.275, P = .000), 24 hours (SMD = −0.537, 95% CI: −0.760 to −0.313, P = .000), and 48 hours (SMD = −0.802, 95% CI: −1.029 to −0.576, P = .000). Liposomal bupivacaine intervention was found to significantly decrease opioid consumption at 12 hours (SMD = −0.544, 95% CI: −0.766 to −0.323, P = .000), 24 hours (SMD = −0.357, 95% CI: −0.577 to −0.138, P = .001), and 48 hours (SMD = −0.370, 95% CI: −0.589 to −0.151, P = .001).Local liposomal bupivacaine infiltration could significantly reduce visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and opioid consumption within the first 48 hours following THA surgery. In addition, there was a decreased risk of nausea and vomiting in liposomal bupivacaine groups. The overall evidence level was low, which means that further research is likely to significantly alter confidence levels in the effect, as well as potentially changing the estimates. In any subsequent research, further studies should focus on the optimal dose of local anesthetics and the potential adverse side effects. In addition, surgeries that can improve pain relief and enable faster rehabilitation and earlier discharges should also be explored. Several potential limitations of this study should be noted. Four articles are included and the sample size in each trial is small. Some important outcome parameters such as range of motion were not fully described and could not be included in the meta-analysis. All included studies were retrospectives which may decrease evidence levels for the meta-analysis. The evidence quality for each outcome was low which may influence the results of the meta-analysis. Short-term follow-ups may lead to the underestimation of complications, such as neurotoxicity and cardiotoxicity. Publication bias is an inherent weakness that exists in all meta-analyses.