Liposome bupivacaine for pain control after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Table 1 The general characteristic of the included studies

Author	Country	No. of patients			Female (%)		Age (mean)		Anesthesia	Approach	Use of cement	Indication of pain	Follow-up (month)
Author	Country	Total	LB	CO	LB	CO	LB	CO	Anesthesia	Approach	Use of cement	Indication of pain	Follow-up (month)
Bramlett 2012 [11] 133mg	USA	62	28	34	53.6	67.6	61.4	62.2	General anesthesia	NS	NS	NRS	1
Bramlett 2012 [11] 266mg	USA	59	25	34	48	67.6	61.1	62.2	General anesthesia	NS	NS	NRS	1
Bramlett 2012 [11] 399mg	USA	60	26	34	57.7	67.6	61.8	62.2	General anesthesia	NS	NS	NRS	1
Bramlett 2012 [11] 532mg	USA	59	25	34	80	67.6	64.9	62.2	General anesthesia	NS	NS	NRS	1
Collis 2016 [15]	USA	105	54	51	53.7	72.5	63	63	General anesthesia	Subvastus approach	NS	VAS	NS
Schroer 2015 [12]	USA	111	58	53	59	60	67	68.6	Spinal or general anesthesia	Mini-subvastus approach	Cemented	VAS	0.75
Schwarzkopf 2016 [13]	USA	38	20	18	67	43	63	59	Spinal anesthesia	Medial parapatellar approach	Cemented	VAS	NS
Surdam 2015 [14]	USA	80	40	40	57.5	52.5	64.9	68.4	Spinal anesthesia	NS	Cemented	Patient self-rated 0–10 pain scale and the Wong–Baker pain faces scale	10

NRS, numeric rating score; NS, not stating, LB, liposome bupivacaine; CO, control

ISSN: 1749-799X