ArticleJournal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques2025
Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration for postprocedural analgesia following interventional procedures for vascular anomalies.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Liposomal Bupivacaine in Perioperative Analgesia: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Economic Context.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We describe the use and assess the safety of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) infiltration for prolonged postprocedural analgesia after procedures to treat vascular anomalies. This is a single-center prospective study. Consecutive patients aged ≥6 years undergoing painful interventions for vascular anomalies were included. Data collected included patient demographics, diagnosis, procedure details, LB dosage, periprocedural pain levels, side effects, and the use of additional analgesics. Follow-up extended through postprocedural day 5. LB was used in 26 procedures in 24 patients with mean age of 17.0 years (range, 6.0-33.0 years; median, 17.5 years). One patient was excluded owing to a lack of follow-up. Twenty patients did not require any pain medication in the recovery unit. The mean pain level was 4, 2, 2, and 2 on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, and 5, respectively. No side effects were noted. LB proved to be a safe and likely effective local anesthetic agent, providing prolonged postprocedural analgesia for patients undergoing painful treatments for vascular anomalies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.