The Role of Liposomal Bupivacaine in Abdominoplasty: A Scoping Review

Document Type

Abstract

Location

Virtual

Start Date

24-4-2026 9:00 AM

End Date

24-4-2026 3:00 PM

Description

INTRODUCTION: In attempt to prolong the effects of bupivacaine, liposomal bupivacaine (LB) was developed as an extended-release formulation capable of providing pain relief for up to 72 hours and has been used across a variety of plastic surgery procedures. The objective of this review is to evaluate the current literature on the use of liposomal bupivacaine in abdominoplasty and to assess its impact on postoperative recovery. METHODS: A scoping review in line with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted across 5 databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) using an iteravely developed search strategy with the assistance of a medical librarian. Search terms included concepts related to plasc surgery, body contouring procedures, and liposomal bupivacaine. A total of 1130 arcles were idenfied, of which 8 met eligibility criteria. Two reviewers independently screened arcles, and conflicts were resolved by discussion. Included studies were reviewed and synthesized qualitavely. RESULTS: Eight studies evaluang LB in abdominoplasty were included. LB was administered via local infiltraon, field block, or transversus abdominis plane block, oen as part of a mulmodal analgesic regimen or enhanced recovery aer surgery (ERAS) protocol. Early studies assessing LB via local infiltraon demonstrated improved postoperave pain control and and reduced opioid consumpon. A later comparave study supported these findings with significantly lower opioid requirements in paents receiving LB compared to connuous infusion pain pumps with bupivacaine. Studies evaluang LB administered via TAP block reported low postoperave pain scores, minimal opioid use, and rapid transion to non-opioid analgesics. Addionally, incorportang LB as part of a larger ERAS-based approach substanally reduced opioid prescribing while maintaining acceptable postoperave pain control compared to tradional protocols. However, a recent randomized controlled trial comparing LB and tradional agents showed no significant difference in postoperave pain scores at any me point in postoperave recovery. DISCUSSION: Overall, LB use has largely been associated with improved pain control and opioid-sparing effects in the context of abdominoplasty and other body contouring procedures, parcularly within mulmodal analgesia strategies. However, the current body of literature remains limited, and many studies supporng the use of LB are observaonal in design without control groups.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 24th, 9:00 AM Apr 24th, 3:00 PM

The Role of Liposomal Bupivacaine in Abdominoplasty: A Scoping Review

Virtual

INTRODUCTION: In attempt to prolong the effects of bupivacaine, liposomal bupivacaine (LB) was developed as an extended-release formulation capable of providing pain relief for up to 72 hours and has been used across a variety of plastic surgery procedures. The objective of this review is to evaluate the current literature on the use of liposomal bupivacaine in abdominoplasty and to assess its impact on postoperative recovery. METHODS: A scoping review in line with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted across 5 databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) using an iteravely developed search strategy with the assistance of a medical librarian. Search terms included concepts related to plasc surgery, body contouring procedures, and liposomal bupivacaine. A total of 1130 arcles were idenfied, of which 8 met eligibility criteria. Two reviewers independently screened arcles, and conflicts were resolved by discussion. Included studies were reviewed and synthesized qualitavely. RESULTS: Eight studies evaluang LB in abdominoplasty were included. LB was administered via local infiltraon, field block, or transversus abdominis plane block, oen as part of a mulmodal analgesic regimen or enhanced recovery aer surgery (ERAS) protocol. Early studies assessing LB via local infiltraon demonstrated improved postoperave pain control and and reduced opioid consumpon. A later comparave study supported these findings with significantly lower opioid requirements in paents receiving LB compared to connuous infusion pain pumps with bupivacaine. Studies evaluang LB administered via TAP block reported low postoperave pain scores, minimal opioid use, and rapid transion to non-opioid analgesics. Addionally, incorportang LB as part of a larger ERAS-based approach substanally reduced opioid prescribing while maintaining acceptable postoperave pain control compared to tradional protocols. However, a recent randomized controlled trial comparing LB and tradional agents showed no significant difference in postoperave pain scores at any me point in postoperave recovery. DISCUSSION: Overall, LB use has largely been associated with improved pain control and opioid-sparing effects in the context of abdominoplasty and other body contouring procedures, parcularly within mulmodal analgesia strategies. However, the current body of literature remains limited, and many studies supporng the use of LB are observaonal in design without control groups.