Evolution and Emerging Trends in Liposomal Bupivacaine Research: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Study (1993-2024).

BACKGROUND: Liposomal bupivacaine has become a significant advancement in postsurgical pain management. OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to describe liposomal bupivacaine's current research landscape and its evolution from 1993 through 2024. STUDY DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis. METHODS: Publications related to liposomal bupivacaine were sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection. The analysis employed VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and R4.3.3 to examine publication trends, collaborations, and emerging research themes. RESULTS: A total of 580 publications were identified, showing an annual growth rate of 13.59%. The United States led the field with 457 publications and 8,880 citations, followed by the People's Republic of China and the State of Israel. The Mayo Clinic, Harvard University, and the University of Texas System were the top institutions. The Journal of Arthroplasty published the most articles-33-and garnered the highest citations-957. Key authors such as Daniel S. Kohane and Michael A. Mont were prominent. A cluster analysis highlighted 5 major research hotspots: pain management and recovery; regional anesthesia techniques; surgical innovation and drug delivery; pharmacological safety; and clinical/regulatory issues. Notably, citation bursts around terms like "placebo controlled trial," "total knee arthroplasty," and "enhanced recovery after surgery" indicate shifting research priorities toward optimizing perioperative protocols. LIMITATIONS: Our analysis was limited to publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, potentially excluding relevant studies from other databases or non-English publications; this limitation may have introduced language and database biases. CONCLUSION: Our bibliometric study highlights 5 major hotspots in liposomal bupivacaine research and reveals a temporal shift from basic pharmaceutical development to clinical integration within enhanced recovery protocols. These findings underscore the need for future investigations focusing on comparative effectiveness, cost-benefit evaluation, and protocol standardization across surgical specialties.