Skip to main content

Advances of Nano-Structured Extended-Release Local Anesthetics

Abstract

Extended-release local anesthetics (LAs) have drawn increasing attention with their promising role in improving analgesia and reducing adverse events of LAs. Nano-structured carriers such as liposomes and polymersomes optimally meet the demands of/for extended-release, and have been utilized in drug delivery over decades and showed satisfactory results with extended-release. Based on mature technology of liposomes, EXPAREL, the first approved liposomal LA loaded with bupivacaine, has seen its success in an extended-release form. At the same time, polymersomes has advances over liposomes with complementary profiles, which inspires the emergence of hybrid carriers. This article summarized the recent research successes on nano-structured extended-release LAs, of which liposomal and polymeric are mainstream systems. Furthermore, with continual optimization, drug delivery systems carry properties beyond simple transportation, such as specificity and responsiveness. In the near future, we may achieve targeted delivery and controlled-release properties to satisfy various analgesic requirements.

Introduction

Pain has been regarded as “the fifth vital sign” since 1996 due to its significance in physical and mental health [1]. In order to deal with opioid crisis happening during traditional pain management, concept of multimodal analgesia is introduced. Local anesthetics (LAs) is one of the most frequently-used and safest analgesics in multimodal regimens [2, 3]. However, limited duration (less than 24 h) and potential toxicity (cardiac and central nervous malfunction) restrict its application and raise the urgency to counterbalance the side effects and prolonged analgesia [4,5,6]. Although disposable catheters with pumps are used to prolong LAs’ duration, the risks of catheter dislodgement, infection, and trauma during procedure do exist. Additionally, catheter placement is labor- and time-consuming [5]. Extended-release LAs compensate for the aforementioned disadvantages. They are capable of continuously releasing a safe dose with single administration (usually injection without general anesthesia, requiring minimal invasive techniques and special tools) to assure minimal systemic toxicity. Meanwhile, prolonged duration of nociceptive block can be achieved.

Compared to macro-scaled drug delivery systems (DDSs), nano-scaled DDS is more compatible to nano-structured biological environment which facilitates its cellular penetration, better bioavailability, and longer retention time [4]. With advances of manufacture techniques, nano-scaled DDS have achieved prominent success in extended-release, which show improved loading efficiency, better biocompatibility (acceptable local inflammation such as myotoxicity and neurotoxicity), and biodegradability (similar degradation rate with depletion of loaded compounds and assuring fully wearing off) [7,8,9]. Furthermore, adjustable and differentiated release profile (flexible duration, modulated analgesic intensity, and controlled targeted release by specific modifications) is designed to meet different demands [7, 8]. Furthermore, diversity of materials are available for choice nowadays, greatly decreasing the cost and expanding the application of nano-scale DDS [7].

However, nano-scaled DDS still faces drawbacks, such as burst release due to high surface-volume ratio, poor stability of liposomes on shelf, and un-ineligible foreign body response of synthetic polymers [4], all of which attract increasing efforts to optimize nano-scaled DDS further. Here, we summarize several state-of-the art formulations of nano-structured extended-release LAs. The most commonly used morphology is nanoparticle, while nano-structured gel, niosome, film, and rod are accessible as well [8, 10, 11]. Here, synthesis techniques, release profiles, analgesic effects, and safety quality are provided and compared to help future design and development.

How Do Local Anesthetics Work?

Analgesic Mechanism and Physiochemical Properties

Peripheral nerves are the first stops to perceive pain stimuli during pain transmission [12]. It is reasonable to consider inhibiting pain from the very beginning, stopping downstream reactions and maladaptive changes of neuroplasticity which are more difficult to control [13]. Therefore, LAs become a perfect choice. LAs work on peripheral nerves via binding to intracellular domain of voltage-gated Na channel, inhibiting influx of Na+, resulting in the blockade of depolarization [14] (Fig. 1a, b).

Fig. 1
figure1

Functional and Structural Properties of LAs. a, b Demonstration of how LAs interact with voltage-gated sodium channel on neuron. c Typical structures of ester and amide LAs

LAs are constituted with three chemical groups: a hydrophilic amino group (mostly tertiary amines), a lipophilic benzene ring, and a linker which can be an amide or an ester, determining LAs’ classification (Fig. 1c). Amide-type LAs are the most commonly used, including bupivacaine, ropivacaine, lidocaine, and mepivacaine. Ester-type LAs involve chloroprocaine, procaine, and tetracaine [14, 15]. Pharmacokinetics such as speed of onset, potency, and duration are largely determined by its physiochemical properties. Permeability through neuronal membrane is a decisive factor for onset which is influenced by the equilibrium between charged and uncharged LAs. With pKa closer to extracellular pH, greater amount of uncharged LAs are formed and diffused into neurons to take effect. Potency of LAs, also called analgesic efficacy, is a result of lipophilicity, which can be quantified by the partition coefficient. Duration is a representative of protein binding affinity, which also creates a reservoir as free LAs are metabolized. Overall, ester-type LAs show relatively rapid onset due to its physiologically similar pKa, but short duration because of easier hydrolysis and poorer protein affinity in vivo, while bupivacaine is the LA with the longest duration of effect due to its long alky chain [14, 16] (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of LAs

Systemic Toxicity

Properties determining effects are also related with systemic toxicity. In spite of blood-brain-barrier (BBB), LAs enter central nervous system (CNS) readily with proper molecular weight, pKa, and good lipophilicity. LAs with low molecular weight, high lipid-solubility, and appropriate pKa such as lidocaine and procaine show rapid parallel change of concentration in spinal-cerebral liquid to plasma drug concentration [19]. Because LA-Nav channel binding is non-exclusive, when LAs are leaked into cardiovascular system accidentally, organs with profuse blood perfusion and high activity of voltage-gated channel (Na, K, Ca), such as heart and brain, will be attacked preferably by LAs leading to organ malfunction [20, 21]. Besides the inhibition to excitation conduction of vulnerable organs, energy depletion due to mitochondrial dysfunction and apoptosis contribute as well [15, 22].

Therefore, the overall toxicity is resulted from extracellular drug concentration, cell membrane permeability, and toxic reactions induced, which can explain the more severe CNS toxicity of quaternary derivative QX-314 compared to lidocaine, although QX-314 penetrates BBB and cell membrane slower [23]. In contrast to central nervous presentations (convulsion and seizure) which are more common, but relatively easier to control, cardiac malfunction, such as conducting disturbance, arrhythmia, and contractile dysfunction, can cause deadly outcome [6, 15]. In order to prolong LAs’ analgesic effect while preventing adverse events, many efforts have been put into the development of extended-release LAs.

Liposomal Formulation of Extended-Release LAs

General Ideas about Liposome

Liposome is a lipid vesicle of nanometer scale, which is phospholipid-based [10]. Liposomal techniques have been long utilized in drug delivery for treating diseases such as cancer, infection, and eye disease. Lipid has a hydrophilic head and hydrophobic tail which are linked by ester or ether bond [24]. Liposomes are produced by aggregation of lipid units in a bilayer form, creating an aqueous sheath and core with hydrophilic heads, shielding hydrophobic tails inside layers. From simple sonication to more sophistic dry-spying technique, increasing innovative approaches have been developed based on diverse combinations of sonication, emulsion, dry-spraying, and flow-focusing to produce liposomes with improved properties(Fig. 2) [24,25,26,27,28]. Thin film hydration is one of the most commonly used production techniques, while microfluidic technique is promising to scale up [29]. Drugs can be entrapped through different ways including passive loading, active loading, loading before patient use, and double emulsion (Fig. 3). Finally, drugs are carried in the aqueous core or between lipid layers depending on the drugs’ hydrophilicity (Fig. 4a). This generous compatibility enables liposomes competent in delivering various drugs [24].

Fig. 2
figure2

Classical techniques of producing liposomes. a Basic production techniques for liposomes. b Demonstrations of production workflow

Fig. 3
figure3

Various drug-loading pathways

Fig. 4
figure4

Structural characteristics of different liposomes. a Drug distribution in liposomes. b Uni-lamellar liposome. c Multi-lamellar liposome. d Multi-vesicular liposome. e Demonstration of DepoFoam technique

Several factors should be considered when building a stable and effective controlled-release system. Lipid composition is the basic and pivotal factor for designing liposomes. First of all, a stable suspension system should be assured which means no aggregation and fusion occur. Composition is the first attribute. Surface charge and electrostatic force can help liposomes repulse against each other to avoid aggregation [30]. However, suspension environment can neutralize surface charge to induce aggregation. 1,2-Dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphate (DPPA) and 1,2- distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1′-rac-glycerol) (DSPG) are two negatively charged lipids belonging to phosphatidylserines, which tend to aggregate when encountering calcium and magnesium cations [31]. Therefore, liposomes containing higher proportion of negatively charged lipids have a higher tendency to aggregate upon addition of divalent cations, which can help determine the lipids’ proportion and cation concentration in liposomal suspension. With determined components, particle size is another attribute to aggregation. Larger particles are more likely to aggregate in spite of net charge [30]. Besides ionic components, another environmental factor is temperature. Low temperature will put liposomes in closer proximity, inducing aggregation. Temperature slightly above transition temperature is recommended for storage [30, 32]. Another strategy to avoiding aggregation is to protect liposomes from interacting with each other by being coated with polyethyleneglycol (PEG). This hydrophilic molecule can work as a sheath, not only to prevent aggregation but also to broaden the choices of surface modification [33]. Building on this idea, improvements have been made to optimize the protection such as the addition of insulin and dextran, and PEGylated bolaamphiphile [34, 35]. Fusion needs more attraction force which is less common to happen compared to aggregation because hydration repulsion force exists when electrostatic force is absent [31]. And this form of repulsive force can be strengthened by increasing proportion of phosphatidylcholine [30, 31].

As for controlled release, decreased ratio of unsaturated lipid tails, more long-chain lipids, and ether linkers can promote stability of liposomes and slow release down. Inserting cholesterol and decorating with molecules such as PEG can also stabilize liposomes which can be classified as hybrid as described later in the review. These modifications decrease fluidity and biodegradation of liposome. Surface charge and particle size are another two considerations. Liposomes of neutral charge and smaller size are cleared more slowly [24, 36]. Octanol/buffer partition coefficient is a characteristic of actives indicating the distribution of drugs when liposomes enter physiological environment, which also determines release pattern. Drugs like bupivacaine with high octanol/buffer partition coefficient can be easily released out [16, 36].

Components not only influence physiochemical properties of liposomes but also influence physiological properties, such as tissues specificity. When liposomes enter blood circulation, phagocytosis by macrophages is the main clearance pathway. However, different recognitions by macrophages in reticuloendothelial systems (RES) happen due to different opsonization process, of which lipid composition, particle size, and surface charge are vital determinants [37, 38]. For example, activation of complement system primarily determined by cholesterol is recognized by Kupffer cells around portal area in liver, while saturated phospholipids enhance recognition by macrophages in spleen and bone marrow [39]. Particle of larger diameter (~ 100 nm)is cleared preferentially by Kupffer cells [37, 38]. Moreover, negatively charged liposome is selectively recognized by scavenger receptor on Kupffer cell while neutral liposomes are more indolent [38]. The phagocytosis occurs rapidly, while the intracellular process is slow ranging from hours to months which results in prolonged retention in RES [37, 38]. This retention can help target RES while hindering systemic distribution. Several strategies have been developed. Morphology of filamicelle can limit the accessibility of binding sites between liposomes and receptors. Soft liposomes are less preferred by macrophages. Stealth strategy by PEGylation and CD47 modification can also passivate liposomes [40]. Saturation of macrophages (RES blockade) by extra liposomes is an alternative to extend circulation of drug-loaded liposomes [41]. In a more aggressive way, transient macrophage depletion can be performed by clodronate.

After escaping from clearance by macrophages, liposomes show good biocompatibility and bio-distribution. For tissues with high vasculature, profound blood perfusion and large vascular pore, liposomes have great tendency to enter. Tumor tissues exhibit all of the properties mentioned above. With aberrant vascular formation and lymphatic drainage, liposomes can easily enter and stay longer in tumor tissues, which is called enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) [42, 43]. Furthermore, liposomes with larger size and positive charge can overcome high interstitial fluid pressure in the center of tumor and penetrate it thoroughly [42]. Apart from passive targeting by blood transportation and structural advantages, active targeting by surface modification is also used widely to optimize selectivity, such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-ligand and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-ligand for tumor targeting, and transferrin ligand and sphingomyelin for BBB penetration [42, 44, 45].

Multivesicular Liposome

Different packings of lipid vesicles can also help prolong drug release. Usually, liposomes are concentric where lipid membranes are packed in a multi-lamellar or uni-lamellar way (Fig. 4b, c) [16]. Therefore, collapse of internal lipid membrane will lead to drug accumulation of drug and rapid release following breach of external layer [46]. In this circumstance, sustained release cannot be achieved. Multivesicular liposomes are non-concentric where vesicles are closely packed to each other from outside (Fig. 4d). Double emulsion, which is also called DepoFoam technology, is used in the production of multivesicular liposome (Fig. 4e). Regarding multivesicular structure, at least one neutral lipid (triglyceride) and one amphipathic lipid (phospholipid) should be chosen. The percentage of triglyceride is related with drug loading efficiency within a certain range [46, 47]. It achieves longer release through gradual degradation of outermost vesicles. Multivesicular structure remains during rearrangement of internal vesicles which is isolated by outer vesicles from external environment to avoid burst release [46, 48]. Multivesicular liposomes show great dominance in release duration, which can release drug over several days to weeks through non-vascular administration compared to hours to days by uni-lamellar and multi-lamellar liposomes through intravascular route [46, 49].

Additional Advantage

Compared to other encapsulating carriers, liposomes may possess additional advantages when delivering LAs. As known by all, lipid emulsion therapy has shown its efficacy in dealing with systemic toxicity of LAs and been added into resuscitation guideline of LAs’ toxicity [50]. The potential mechanisms include releasing LAs from Nav channels in myocardial cells, partitioning and redistributing LAs to storage (fatty acid), detoxification (liver) and excretion organs (kidney), providing extra energy, and augmenting Ca channels to strengthen cardiac output [51, 52]. Although liposomes are assumed to release bupivacaine through erosion and degradation, simultaneous diffusion through lipid membrane happen which can maintain the integrity of liposomes [16, 53, 54]. There is a research finding that large fraction of liposomes can retain its multivesicular structure even after drug is released near-completely in vitro indicating diffusion may dominate [46, 55]. Furthermore, ultrasound-induced pore formation can help remain size and structure of liposomes unchanged [56]. Therefore, assumption can be made that bupivacaine possibly shows decreased toxicity in the form of liposomes with the protection of lipids. Further researches and design manufacturing are needed to confirm and maximize this benefit.

Liposomes have been used in brain-directed drug delivery due to good biocompatibility and lipophilicity [57, 58]. There are several mechanisms mediating penetration through BBB. Transcytosis mediated by receptor or absorption is the main pathway for crossing BBB [45]. Absorption is largely determined by electrostatic attraction between liposomes and negatively charged cell membrane [45]. When liposomes are small enough, such as unilamellar liposomes encompassing lipophilic drugs, passive diffusion may occur. Modifications are also designed to strengthen ligand-receptor binding to facilitate brain-directed drug delivery [57]. Therefore, reverse designs such as negative net charge and lack of BBB-specific ligand can help prevent brain penetration and enhance safety.

EXPAREL-First Liposomal LA Approved

EXPAREL (Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Parsippany, New Jersey, USA) is the only extended-release liposomal LA which is approved by American Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The liposomes suspension is produced by DepoFoam technology with tricaprylin which belongs to neutral lipids, and amphipathic lipids, including 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-rac-(1-glycerol), 1,2-dierucoylphosphatidylcholine, and cholesterol [47, 49]. It is allowed legally in limited clinical situations, including wound infiltration which was approved in 2011, and interscalene brachial plexus block in 2018. It can achieve prolonged release and analgesic efficacy up to 72 h [5].

Compared to conventional analgesic regimen, such as free LA injection, pain pump, epidural analgesia, and patient controlled analgesia (PCA), EAPAREL has demonstrated its non-inferior analgesic potency when used through wound infiltration. Besides on-label indications, EXPAREL has also shown promising role in other analgesic routes, such as intercostal nerve block, transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block, and satellite ganglion block (Table 2). However, there are researches showing negative results on analgesic potency of EXPAREL regarding wound infiltration. These researches are different in surgeries of distinct pain intensity, also in the time-points of pain evaluation, which are relatively earlier such as 12 h. Orthopedic surgeries usually lead to severe pain in patient, therefore single wound infiltration with EXPAREL may be insufficient in controlling pain. Compared to plain bupivacaine, EXPAREL may not release adequate bupivacaine at the initial time and cannot be co-administrated with free LAs additionally to achieve better analgesia (Table 3). Therefore, analgesic effect of EXPAREL may depend on the type of surgery, pain intensity, and expected analgesic onset.

Table 2 Summary of researches with positive efficacy of EXPAREL
Table 3 Summary of researches with negative efficacy of EXPAREL

In spite of controversy in analgesia, administration route of EXPAREL is simpler and safer compared to catheter insertion, nerve block, and epidural analgesia [62, 75, 76]. In animal models, EXPAREL does not induce neurotoxicity (reduction of neuronal concentration or demyelination) after peri/intraneural or subarachnoid injection [77,78,79]. But EXPAREL-induced regional inflammation around injection site is higher compared to conventional bupivacaine HCl, but similar with saline [78]. Overall, EXPAREL shows similar toxicity with free bupivacaine [80,81,82,83]. Medical cost using EXPAREL decreases further compared to epidural analgesia [63, 84] and continuous pump [60], but the cost is greater than plain LAs injection [85,86,87,88]. Therefore, utilization of EXPAREL needs comprehensive considerations including different requirement of analgesia expected in different surgeries and cost-efficiency.

Attentions

EXPAREL has an obvious restriction on application due to fluidity and rearrangement of lipid layers. Rapid release of bupivacaine with additional use of free LAs, especially within 20 min, will occur due to replacement of bupivacaine in liposomes [89]. In this circumstance, incidence of local anesthesia systemic toxicity (LAST) will increase dramatically. Lidocaine especially shows stronger affinity to DepoFoam, inducing greater systemic exposure of both lidocaine and bupivacaine when co-administered with EXPAREL within 20 min. However, the risk of burst release is not only due to replacement but also due to vascular effects of LAs and vasoconstrictors used, and diluting/mixing effects. Therefore, time beyond 20 min assures a safe level both of EXPAREL and free LAs [90]. As for bupivacaine HCl, a mixture with EXPAREL is allowed of a ratio lower than 1:2 to assure safe and sustained release [5, 49]. Since analgesia is a multi-disciplinary cooperation, careful attention should be paid to administer EXPAREL. Moreover, all liposomal products have a storage problem which is described as unstable “on the shelf.” Lipids will be degraded into harmful metabolites over a long period of storage. Excessive lysolipids and other lipid debris will bind to red blood cells resulting in deadly hemolysis. Being coated with chitosan or alginate may overcome this problem by stabilizing liposome and extending conservation up to 2 years [24, 36].

More Inspirations

Efforts from other points are also taken to improve liposomal bupivacaine’s analgesic efficacy. Christopher Weldon et al. increased cell-liposomal bupivacaine interaction through decreasing particular size to ten times smaller, prolonging its regional retention which achieved longer anesthesia and similar safety quality compared to regular liposomal bupivacaine in Bier block [91]. Changyou Zhan and his colleagues combined gold nanorods and liposomes to achieve phototriggered anesthesia. This photo-reactive system minimizes the required single dose of near-infrared light and exhibits satisfactory safety. More importantly, it achieves on-demand and repeated regional anesthesia, which will make pain management more individualized and precise [92]. Alternatively, strengthening interaction of LAs and lipids with evidence that LAs has different affinity with different lipids [93], and encapsulating liposomes with alginate to enhance anti-inflammatory reaction of mesenchymal stromal cells [94], may further improve controlled-release and meet different clinical demands.

Polymeric Formulation of Extended-Release LAs

Basic Knowledge on Polymeric DDS

Polymers are macromolecules which consist of thousands of repeated units (monomers). Unlike liposomes where Van der Waals’ force and hydrogen bonds play important roles, polymers are formed by covalent bonds, which provide better stability not only on shelf, but also when co-administered with free LAs. Large group of biocompatible and biodegradable polymers have been used in the fabrication of extended-release material, not only natural but also synthetic. Considering different chemical properties of amide and ester LAs, corresponsive loading methods can be used to optimize loading efficiency (electrostatic interaction, covalent conjugation, and encapsulation) [8]. Additionally, flexible morphologies such as nanoparticle, nanocapsule, nanogel, nanofilm, and nanofiber expand the application of polymeric DDS in practice when injection, dressing or film is needed [7, 8]. Furthermore, structural modifications empower polymeric DDS adjustable release profile such as days for perioperative pain, weeks for chronic pain, and co-delivery with a second drug to enhance LAs’ efficacy [7].

Among the most used synthetic polymers are polyesters. This category includes poly (l-lactide), poly (glycolic acid), poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid), and poly (e-caprolactone) [95]. Metabolites are usually small molecules such as carbon dioxide and water, which can be recycled or excreted safely [96]. On the other hand, production techniques have evolved greatly from traditional ones, such as double/single emulsion, precipitation, and spray-drying, into microfluidic platform, extrusion and particle replication in nonwetting template (PRINT) (Fig. 5a–g). Novel techniques such as electrospinning are also developed to enable flexibility in formulation and delivery (Fig. 5h) [95, 96].

Fig. 5
figure5

Classical techniques of polymersomes. a Single emulsion. b Double emulsion. c Nanoprecipitation. d Spray-drying. e Microfluidics. f Extrusion emulsification. g Particle replication in nonwetting template (PRINT). h Electrospinning

There is another production method, self-assembly, which has not been utilized widely in drug delivery but may enlighten the future path of DDS. Self-assembly differs from other production procedures by spontaneous assembly into micelles of amphiphilic polymer-agent copolymers in aqueous environment. Therefore, it exhibits simplicity, high efficiency, and good water dispersibility [97, 98]. Copolymers can be formed through a variety of reactions, such as one-pot multicomponent reaction (mannish reaction between secondary amide and active hydrogen compound which are linked by formaldehyde) [97, 99], supramolecular reaction (host-guest interaction, such as cyclodextrin and adamantine) [100, 101], esterification and ring open reaction [102,103,104], thiol-yne click reaction [105], and post-modification of copolymers [106]. Although this technique is mainly used in fluorescent polymeric particle recently to help protect from fluorescence-quenching and achieve aggregation-induced emission, diverse reactions and interactions make it possible that different hydrophobic drugs can find responsive polymers (especially organic polymers) to self-assemble into micelles [107, 108]. For example, secondary amide in amide LAs can be used as active moiety reacting with polymers by mannish reaction. Alternatively, drugs can be absorbed into copolymers to achieve simultaneous imaging and treatment [101]. Since hydrophobic drugs are encapsulated in the core of micelles, it can provide a suitable inner environment for drug efficacy, such as alkaline environment for LAs. Meanwhile, great cell-uptake behavior may enhance drugs which target intracellular domains such as LAs [97, 100, 105]. Furthermore, reactions are usually catalyst-free/simple (such as microwave and ultrasound) [109, 110], solvent-economical, experimental-condition-mild, and time-saving, which empower its mass production in the future [97, 105].

Polymeric DDS releases active agents by several pathways. When water fluxes into polymers in the beginning, convection creates an osmotic force pumping drugs out. Yet, diffusion through pores formed in aqueous environment is the major way. It helps hydrophilic drugs, such as ionized LAs, to leak out. Contrarily, hydrophobic drugs can diffuse directly through. At the final stage of a typical tri-phase release profile, erosion of polymer dominates [111, 112].

Like liposomes, polymersomes also face the challenge of RES clearance. Morphology modification, stealth strategy, RES blockade, and macrophage depletion can be applied as well [40, 113,114,115]. Furthermore, the EPR effect facilitate tumor-target while auxiliary surface modification can help tissue specificity [43, 116]. Polymersomes do not induce significant systemic inflammation while some of natural polymers such as hyaluronan and laminin, and synthetic polymers such as negatively charged poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) and polyurethane can reduce systemic inflammatory reaction [117,118,119]. Moreover, N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide and polystyrene are reported to reduce neurotoxicity [120, 121].

Diverse Morphology and Applications

Particle is a common form of polymeric DDS. Polymeric particles are generally divided into two categories: nanosphere and nanocapsule. Nanosphere is an evenly disperse system, while nanocapsule is an embedding drug in polymeric cavity [95]. The earliest researches built nanoparticles with poor entrapment efficiency (< 60%) and release duration (< 30 h) [122, 123]. With finesses of technology, the drug entrapment efficiency reaches nearly 90% [124,125,126], the highest result is 93.3% [127]. In-vitro release can reach a maximal duration of 35 days [128]. There is another available form termed nanofiber, which is produced by electrospinning. Electrospinning technique has been widely applied in drug delivery, but limited usage in LAs. There is one research only using electrospinning technique to fabricate bupivacaine-loaded suture. It gained satisfactory results on extended release (over 12 days), while significant analgesia appeared from day 1 to day 9 in rat skin wound model [129]. Mostly in polymersomes, drugs are entrapped physically; in polymer-drug conjugate, drug is bonded to polymer covalently to enhance drug loading capacity and prolong release furthermore [130]. Apart from solid forms, amorphous forms such as gel show more versatility and malleability. A 60-day release was seen in the work of Daryl Sivakumaran and his colleagues (Table 4) [134]. Rapid burst release over 60% of LAs was observed in the work of Haibo Qu and his colleagues (Table 4) [135].

Table 4 Summary of researches on traditional polymeric LAs delivery system

In order to make the release intelligent, responsive materials are used in situations where structural changes, volume-phase transitions, or sol-gel transitions are needed [137]. Inflammatory reaction is a major and initial process when trauma happens. Along with it is the changes of pH and temperature. Thus, pH and temperature are stimuli used commonly in LAs delivery. In the work of Todd Hoare and his colleagues, thermal aggregation can help control regional accumulation of thermal-responsive nanogel. However, larger precipitates after aggregation induced more severe local inflammation (Table 5) [139]. Teresa Alejo and his colleagues used sequential heat pulse to trigger the collapse of nanoparticle, fastening profound release in a spatiotemporal way (Table 5) [138]. A pH-responsive polymer (methacrylicacid–ethyl acrylate) was used by Jeremy P.K. Tan to achieve decreased release of procaine chloride with decrease of pH (Table 5) [140].

Table 5 Summary of researches on responsive polymeric LAs delivery system

Despite the advantages of being responsive to stimuli, pH and temperature-responsive polymers do not act precisely enough to localize therapeutic agents. Moreover, acidic environment and high temperature may bring harm. Therefore, stimuli which are able to modulate therapeutic agents precisely without harm are wanted. Although there is no application so far in LAs delivery, ultrasound-responsive nanoparticles exhibiting harmless property have shown precise localization in tumor targeting and imaging [141, 142]. However, ultrasound signal can be influenced by air attenuation and bone structure. Magnetic responsive nanoparticles exhibit broader application such as in respiratory system which is filled with air and central nervous system covered with cranial bone [143]. Furthermore, magnetic responsive nanoparticles can help spatially and temporally localize actives without restriction by tissues depth [143]. Generally, there are three mechanisms underlying magnetic response, which are magnetic deformation, magnetic guidance, and magnetic-induced hyperthermia [144, 145]. Aginate-based ferrogel undergoes pore formation with magnetic stimulation [146]. In contrast, chitosan-based nanoparticle undergoes pore formation with the help of heat produced by magnetic field [147, 148]. In order to decrease thermal damage to surrounding tissues, Wei Chen and his colleagues produced a core-shell structure to embed heat-producing core and prevent thermal damage [143]. The guidance function can help the nanoparticle migrate long distance and penetrate biological barrier [149]. Combination of aforementioned mechanisms can create synergistic outcomes [150].

Polymeric carriers endow LAs extended-release, but unexpected burst release does exist. Long-term degradation may induce foreign body response. Versatility of materials and mature techniques are advantages of polymeric carriers. Acidic metabolites, however, may hamper the effect of LAs. Although responsive polymers make delivery more intelligent, they do not solve the aforementioned problems above completely. Therefore, further improvements are needed.

Lipid-Polymer Hybrid Carriers of Local Anesthetic

Liposomal and polymeric nanocarriers both have drawbacks such as low solubility, poor stability, undesired drug leakage. and diffusion [151,152,153]. Conventional liposomes are easily cleared out by enzymatic degradation and macrophage engulfing. Therefore, surface modification with inert and hydrophilic coats, such as PEG, ganglioside GM1, and phosphatidylinositol, have been used for protection against degradation by enzymes and macrophages. Furthermore, pegylation can enhance the negative charge of liposome and reinforce its attraction to cationic actives. In the work of Brett A. Howell and his colleagues, higher concentration and slower release of bupivacaine in human serum was observed in pegylated liposomes compared to conventional liposomes [154]. Alternatively, apolar cavity of biologically active compounds formed by cyclodextrins (a polymeric peptide), also known as an inclusion, in multi-vesicular liposomes can help achieve longer release. Inspired by various pioneer attempts to overcome drawbacks of liposome and polymeric nanoparticles, lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles come to the stage of controlled release [151, 155].

There are three systems of hybrid nanoparticles: lipid-core polymer-shell, polymer-core lipid-shell, and the polymer-lipid matrix. Lipid-core polymer-shell system using a polymeric coat improves the stability of liposome and delays clearance, while maintaining optimal biocompatibility of lipid core. The amphiphilic properties of some polymers can reduce surface tension of nanoparticles and decrease particle size to achieve better biocompatibility. Additionally, responsive polymers can enable liposomes more flexible behavior in various physical environment [152, 156]. Poly (acrylic acid) (Chol-PAA) is a pH-sensitive polymer, which tends to form globular structure from random coil in low pH. In poly (acrylic acid) (Chol-PAA)-caged liposome, the polymeric coat shrinks when environmental pH decreases, compressing core liposome to release significantly when liposome collapses [152]. Marina Sokolsky-Papkov and her colleagues used hybrid polymer (DL-lactic acid and castor oil) to formulate bupivacaine-loaded nanoparticles. This poly (fatty-ester) achieved relatively longer in-vitro release (beyond 1 week) and sensory blockade (> 72 h) compared to previous research [157]. Further research confirmed its release profile and extended its analgesic efficacy among thermal pain, mechanical pain, and rearing assessment [158]. Another research study explored the difference between oil nucleus on stability, release profile, and analgesia property, and found that a higher entrapment efficacy was observed compared to polymeric DDS [159].

Polymer-core lipid-shell system is commonly used in intravenous administration of drugs, especially anticancer drugs [151, 155]. The two components together help inhibit water infiltration and slow hydrolysis down, and as a result prevent drug diffusion and burst leakage. Lipid shell also enhances biocompatibility of nanoparticle with similarity to cell membrane [160]; this is promising in achieving simultaneous co-delivery of multiple drugs [151, 152, 160]. On the other hand, polymeric core can facilitate mechanical stability, shape control, and size distribution. Additionally, it can increase drug entrapment efficacy. In the work of Jianguo Wang and his colleagues, nanoparticle showed a slower release speed, smaller particle diameter, and higher drug loading compared to traditional liposomes [161]. The work by Pengju Ma at el. showed that hybrid bupivacaine nanoparticle had better stability, analgesic efficacy, and cytotoxicity [162].

The third system is a polymer-lipid matrix which can be subdivided into polymerized liposomes and nano-in-micro type. As their names suggest, polymerized liposome is a covalently bound liposome which demonstrates better stability and modulated release as mentioned above with basic knowledge on polymeric DDS [154], while the nano-in-micro system gathers nanoparticles into a matrix to achieve controlled release as shown in the work of Khanal Manakamana and his colleagues [163]. Moreover, hybrid nanoparticle was used in transdermal route showing better skin permeation than free bupivacaine in three studies by Yaocun Yue and Aimei Li at el., which expands its clinical application of analgesia [161, 164, 165].

Future Perspectives

Nano-structured systems have been utilized in extended-release for drug delivery over decades. Tremendous breakthroughs have been seen in controlled release of LAs to achieve longer duration of analgesic and better safety profile, bringing in the successful approval of EXPAREL. At the same time, various modifications and combinations of nano-structured systems have broaden the horizon of LAs. With the guidance of physical or chemical stimuli, targeting LAs to treat the specific sources of pain may not be a difficult process anymore. Additionally, with the help of external and internal stimulus, we may modulate the release profile of LAs even after administration. Physiochemical properties of actives, rather than carriers alone, are also taken into account to formulate new and flexible systems. In the future, we may see precisely designed extended-release LAs to meet different demands of analgesic intensity, duration, and target sites in distinct surgeries, to make analgesia more individualized.

Conclusions

LAs are key components in multimodal analgesia. Short duration and adverse side effects limit its application, which induces the emergence of extended-release LAs. Nano-structured DDSs show better biocompatibility and biodegradation compared to micro-structured DDSs due to similar size with physiological environment. Among various nanocarriers, liposomes achieve the first success in super-long-lasting LAs, which can release bupivacaine for 72 h in vivo. Liposomes also potentiate the safety of LAs with the protection of emulsion. The instability of liposome, however, hinders its storage and co-administration profile with additional free LAs. Compared to liposome, polymersome has a more advantageous profile with better stability and prolonged release. Moreover, the electrospinning technique and the stimuli-responsive property endow polymersomes with more flexibility in morphology and release behavior. Besides the optimization of materials and manufacturing processes, combination of nanocarriers is an alternative way to improve drawbacks and boost strengths. This is where hybrid nanocarriers come to the stage: hybrids not only improve the release profile but also broaden administration routes, such as the transdermal route. With the ever-emerging versatility of nanocarriers, extended-release may become more specific and controllable in the future to satisfy various analgesic demands.

Availability of Data and Materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

BBB:

Blood-brain barrier

CNS:

Central nervous system

DDSs:

Drug delivery systems

DPPA:

1,2-Dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphate

DSPG:

1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1'-rac-glycerol)

EGFR:

Epidermal growth factor receptor

EPR:

Enhanced permeability and retention

FDA:

American Food and Drug Administration

LAs:

Local anesthetics

LAST:

Local anesthesia systemic toxicity

PCA:

Patient controlled analgesia

PEG:

Polyethylene glycol

PRINT:

Particle replication in nonwetting template

RES:

Reticuloendothelial system

TAP:

Transversus abdominis plane

VEGF:

Vascular endothelial growth factor

References

  1. 1.

    Levy N, Sturgess J, Mills P (2018) “Pain as the fifth vital sign” and dependence on the “numerical pain scale” is being abandoned in the us: Why? Br J Anaesth 120:435–438

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Rawal N (2016) Current issues in postoperative pain management. Eur J Anaesthesiol 33:160–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Helander EM, Menard BL, Harmon CM, Homra BK, Allain AV, Bordelon GJ et al (2017) Multimodal analgesia, current concepts, and acute pain considerations. Curr Pain Headache Rep 21:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Zorzetto L, Brambilla P, Marcello E, Bloise N, De Gregori M, Cobianchi L et al (2016) From micro- to nanostructured implantable device for local anesthetic delivery. Int J Nanomedicine 11:2695–2709

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Balocco AL, Van Zundert PGE, Gan SS, Gan TJ, Hadzic A (2018) Extended release bupivacaine formulations for postoperative analgesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol

  6. 6.

    El-Boghdadly K, Pawa A, Chin KJ (2018) Local anesthetic systemic toxicity: Current perspectives. Local Reg Anesth 11:35–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Santamaria CM, Woodruff A, Yang R, Kohane DS (2017) Drug delivery systems for prolonged duration local anesthesia. Mater Today (Kidlington) 20:22–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Venditti I (2019) Morphologies and functionalities of polymeric nanocarriers as chemical tools for drug delivery: A review. J King Saud University - Science 31:398–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Andreu V, Arruebo M (2018) Current progress and challenges of nanoparticle-based therapeutics in pain management. J Control Release 269:189–213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Moradkhani MR, Karimi A, Negahdari B (2018) Nanotechnology application to local anaesthesia (la). Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol 46:355–360

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Rinaldi F, Del Favero E, Moeller J, Hanieh PN, Passeri D, Rossi M et al (2019) Hydrophilic silver nanoparticles loaded into niosomes: Physical-chemical characterization in view of biological applications. Nanomaterials (Basel) 9

  12. 12.

    Bradford W, Fenton ES, Zolton J (2015) The neurobiology of pain perception in normal and persistent pain. Pain Manag 5:297–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Chapman CR, Vierck CJ (2017) The transition of acute postoperative pain to chronic pain: An integrative overview of research on mechanisms. J Pain 18:359 e1–359e38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Skidmore RA, Patterson JD, Tomsick RS (1996) Local anesthetics. Dermato Surg 22:511–522

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dickerson DM, Apfelbaum JL (2014) Local anesthetic systemic toxicity. Aesthet Surg J 34:1111–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Weiniger CF, Golovanevski M, Sokolsky-Papkov M, Domb A (2010) Review of prolonged local anesthetic action. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 7:737–752

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Barletta M, Reed R (2019) Local anesthetics: pharmacology and special preparations. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 49:1109–1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Becker DE, Reed KL (2006) Essentials of local anesthetic pharmacology. Anesth Prog 53:98–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Usubiaga JE, Moya F, Wikinski JA, Wikinski R, Usubuaga LE (1967) Relationship between the passage of local anaesthetics across the blood-brain barrier and their effects on the central nervous system. Brit J Anes 39:943–947

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sekimoto K, Tobe M, Saito S (2017) Local anesthetic toxicity: acute and chronic management. Acute Med Surg 4:152–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Putrenko I, Ghavanini AA, Meyer Schoniger KS, Schwarz SK (2016) Central nervous system-toxic lidocaine concentrations unmask l-type ca(2)(+) current-mediated action potentials in rat thalamocortical neurons: an in vitro mechanism of action study. Anesth Analg 122:1360–1369

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Perez-Castro R, Patel S, Garavito-Aguilar ZV, Rosenberg A, Recio-Pinto E, Zhang J (2009) and at el. Cytotoxicity of local anesthetics in human neuronal cells. Anesth Analg 108:997–1007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Cheung HM, Lee SM, MacLeod BA, Ries CR, Schwarz SK (2011) A comparison of the systemic toxicity of lidocaine versus its quaternary derivative qx-314 in mice. Can J Anaesth 58:443–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kapoor M, Lee SL, Tyner KM (2017) Liposomal drug product development and quality: Current us experience and perspective. AAPS J 19:632–641

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Lujan H, Griffin WC, Taube JH, Sayes CM (2019) Synthesis and characterization of nanometer-sized liposomes for encapsulation and microrna transfer to breast cancer cells. Int J Nanomedicine 14:5159–5173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    de Freitas CF, Calori IR, Tessaro AL, Caetano W, Hioka N (2019) Rapid formation of small unilamellar vesicles (suv) through low-frequency sonication: An innovative approach. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 181:837–844

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Liau JJ, Hook S, Prestidge CA, Barnes TJ (2015) A lipid based multi-compartmental system: Liposomes-in-double emulsion for oral vaccine delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 97:15–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Brinkmann-Trettenes U, Barnert S, Bauer-Brandl A (2014) Single step bottom-up process to generate solid phospholipid nano-particles. Pharm Dev Technol 19:326–332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Roces CB, Khadke S, Christensen D, Perrie Y. Scale-independent microfluidic production of cationic liposomal adjuvants and development of enhanced lymphatic targeting strategies. Mol Pharm. 2019.

  30. 30.

    Casals E, AMa G, Escolar G, Gallardo M, Estelrich J (2003) Physical stability of liposomes bearing hemostatic activity. Chem Phys Lipids 125:139–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Rahnfeld L, Thamm J, Steiniger F, van Hoogevest P, Luciani P (2018) Study on the in situ aggregation of liposomes with negatively charged phospholipids for use as injectable depot formulation. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 168:10–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Rivnay B, Wakim J, Avery K, Petrochenko P, Myung JH, Kozak D, Nivorozhkin A et al (2019) Critical process parameters in manufacturing of liposomal formulations of amphotericin b. Int J Pharm 565:447–457

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Harasym T, Tardi P, Longman SA, Ansell SM, Bally MB, Cullis PR et al (1995) Poly(ethy1ene glycol)-modified phospholipids prevent aggregation during covalent conjugation of proteins to liposomes. Bioconjug Chem 6:187–194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hinrichs WL, Mancenido FA, Sanders NN, Braeckmans K, De Smedt SC, Demeester J et al (2006) The choice of a suitable oligosaccharide to prevent aggregation of pegylated nanoparticles during freeze thawing and freeze drying. Int J Pharm 311:237–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Zhang Y, Mintzer E, Uhrich KE (2016) Synthesis and characterization of pegylated bolaamphiphiles with enhanced retention in liposomes. J Colloid Interface Sci 482:19–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lila ASA, Ishida T (2017) Liposomal delivery systems. Biol Pharm Bull 40:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Longmire M, Choyke PL, Kobayashi H (2008) Clearance properties of nano-sized particles and molecules as imaging agents: considerations and caveats. Nanomedicine. 3:703–717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Zhang YN, Poon W, Tavares AJ, McGilvray ID, Chan WCW (2016) Nanoparticle-liver interactions: Cellular uptake and hepatobiliary elimination. J Control Release 240:332–348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Moghimia SM, Patel HM (1998) Serum-mediated recognition of liposomes by phagocytic cells of the reticuloendothelial system—the concept of tissue specificity. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 32:45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Gheibi Hayat SM, Bianconi V, Pirro M, Sahebkar A (2019) Stealth functionalization of biomaterials and nanoparticles by cd47 mimicry. Int J Pharm 569:118628

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Liu T, Choi H, Zhou R, Chen IW (2015) Res blockade: A strategy for boosting efficiency of nanoparticle drug. Nano Today 10:11–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Yingchoncharoen P, Kalinowski DS, Richardson DR (2016) Lipid-based drug delivery systems in cancer therapy: what is available and what is yet to come. Pharmacol Rev 68:701–787

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Suresh PK (2018) Tumor heterogeneity: An important determinant for efficacy and safety in nanoparticle anticancer gene therapy. Trends Biotechnol 36:476–477

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Holme MN, Rana S, Barriga HMG, Kauscher U, Brooks NJ, Stevens MM (2018) A robust liposomal platform for direct colorimetric detection of sphingomyelinase enzyme and inhibitors. ACS Nano 12:8197–8207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Vieira DB, Gamarra LF (2016) Getting into the brain: Liposome-based strategies for effective drug delivery across the blood-brain barrier. Int J Nanomedicine 11:5381–5414

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    S. M (2002) A lipid based depot (depofoam((r)) technology) for sustained release drug delivery. Prog Lipid Res 41:392–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Manna S, Wu Y, Wang Y, Koo B, Chen L, Petrochenko P et al (2019) Probing the mechanism of bupivacaine drug release from multivesicular liposomes. J Control Release 294:279–287

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Angst MS, Drover DR (2006) Pharmacology of drugs formulated with depofoam. Clin Pharmacokinet 45:1153–1176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Skolnik A, Gan TJ (2014) New formulations of bupivacaine for the treatment of postoperative pain- liposomal bupivacaine and saber-bupivacaine. Expert Opin Pharmacother 15:1535–1542

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Hoegberg LC, Bania TC, Lavergne V, Bailey B, Turgeon AF, Thomas SH et al (2016) Systematic review of the effect of intravenous lipid emulsion therapy for local anesthetic toxicity. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 54:167–193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Fettiplace MR, Weinberg G (2015) Past, present, and future of lipid resuscitation therapy. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 39:72S–83S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Damitz R, Chauhan A (2015) Parenteral emulsions and liposomes to treat drug overdose. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 90:12–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Sun L, Wang T, Gao L, Quan D, Feng D (2013) Multivesicular liposomes for sustained release of naltrexone hydrochloride: design, characterization and in vitro/in vivo evaluation. Pharm Dev Technol 18:828–833

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Shen Y, Ji Y, Xu S, Chen DQ, Tu J (2011) Multivesicular liposome formulations for the sustained delivery of ropivacaine hydrochloride: preparation, characterization, and pharmacokinetics. Drug Deliv 18:361–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Petrovic S, Tacic A, Savic S, Nikolic V, Nikolic L, Savic S (2017) Sulfanilamide in solution and liposome vesicles; in vitro release and uv-stability studies. Saudi Pharm J 25:1194–1200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Evjen TJ, Hupfeld S, Barnert S, Fossheim S, Schubert R, Brandl M (2013) Physicochemical characterization of liposomes after ultrasound exposure—mechanisms of drug release. J Pharm Biomed Anal 78-79:118–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Alexander A, Agrawal M, Uddin A, Siddique S, Shehata AM, Shaker MA, Ata Ur Rahman S, MIM A, Shaker MA (2019) Recent expansions of novel strategies towards the drug targeting into the brain. Int J Nanomedicine 14:5895–5909

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Lu CT, Zhao YZ, Wong HL, Cai J, Peng L, Tian XQ (2014) Current approaches to enhance cns delivery of drugs across the brain barriers. Int J Nanomedicine 9:2241–2257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Mazloomdoost D, Pauls RN, Hennen EN, Yeung JY, Smith BC, Kleeman SD et al (2017) Liposomal bupivacaine decreases pain following retropubic sling placement: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217:598 e1–598e11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Sabesan VJ, Shahriar R, Petersen-Fitts GR, Whaley JD, Bou-Akl T, Sweet M et al (2017) A prospective randomized controlled trial to identify the optimal postoperative pain management in shoulder arthroplasty: liposomal bupivacaine versus continuous interscalene catheter. J Shoulder Elb Surg 26:1810–1817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Rice DC, Cata JP, Mena GE, Rodriguez-Restrepo A, Correa AM, Mehran RJ (2015) Posterior intercostal nerve block with liposomal bupivacaine: an alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia. Ann Thorac Surg 99:1953–1960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Khalil KG, Boutrous ML, Irani AD, Miller CC, Pawelek TR, Estrera AL et al (2015) Operative intercostal nerve blocks with long-acting bupivacaine liposome for pain control after thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 100:2013–2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Medina M, Foiles SR, Francois M, Asche CV, Ren J, Mueller DK et al (2019) Comparison of cost and outcomes in patients receiving thoracic epidural versus liposomal bupivacaine for video-assisted thoracoscopic pulmonary resection. Am J Surg 217:520–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Bhakta A, Glotzer O, Ata A, Tafen M, Stain SC, Singh PT (2018) Analgesic efficacy of laparoscopic-guided transverse abdominis plane block using liposomal bupivacaine in bariatric surgery. Am J Surg 215:643–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Gatherwright J, Knackstedt RW, Ghaznavi AM, Bernard S, Schwarz G, Moreira A et al (2018) Prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of bupivacaine versus liposomal bupivacaine for pain management after unilateral delayed deep inferior epigastric perforator free flap reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:1327–1330

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Ayad S, Babazade R, Elsharkawy H, Nadar V, Lokhande C, Makarova N et al (2016) Comparison of transversus abdominis plane infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine versus continuous epidural analgesia versus intravenous opioid analgesia. PLoS One 11:e0153675

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Hutchins JL, Kesha R, Blanco F, Dunn T, Hochhalter R (2016) Ultrasound-guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks with liposomal bupivacaine vs. Non-liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative pain control after laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomised observer-blinded study. Anaesthesia. 71:930–937

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Suarez JC, Al-Mansoori AA, Kanwar S, Semien GA, Villa JM, CA MN et al (2018) Effectiveness of novel adjuncts in pain management following total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplast 33:S136–SS41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Amundson AW, Johnson RL, Abdel MP, Mantilla CB, Panchamia JK, Taunton MJ et al (2017) A three-arm randomized clinical trial comparing continuous femoral plus single-injection sciatic peripheral nerve blocks versus periarticular injection with ropivacaine or liposomal bupivacaine for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Anesthesiology 126:1139–1150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Okoroha KR, Keller RA, Marshall NE, Jung EK, Mehran N, Owashi E et al (2016) Liposomal bupivacaine versus femoral nerve block for pain control after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized trial. Arthroscopy. The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery 32:1838–1845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Jones CL, Gruber DD, Fischer JR, Leonard K, Hernandez SL (2018) Liposomal bupivacaine efficacy for postoperative pain following posterior vaginal surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 219:500 e1–500 e8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Lee CY, Robinson DA, Johnson CA, Zhang Y, Wong J, Joshi DJ et al (2019) A randomized controlled trial of liposomal bupivacaine parasternal intercostal block for sternotomy. An Thorac Surg 107:128–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Okoroha KR, Lynch JR, Keller RA, Korona J, Amato C, Rill B et al (2016) Liposomal bupivacaine versus interscalene nerve block for pain control after shoulder arthroplasty: A prospective randomized trial. J Shoulder Elb Surg 25:1742–1748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Namdari S, Nicholson T, Abboud J, Lazarus M, Steinberg D, Williams G (2017) Randomized controlled trial of interscalene block compared with injectable liposomal bupivacaine in shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:550–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Talmo CT, Kent SE, Fredette AN, Anderson MC, Hassan MK, Mattingly DA (2018) Prospective randomized trial comparing femoral nerve block with intraoperative local anesthetic injection of liposomal bupivacaine in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33:3474–3478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Mehran RJ, Walsh GL, Zalpour A, Cata JP, Correa AM, Antonoff MB et al (2017) Intercostal nerve blocks with liposomal bupivacaine: demonstration of safety, and potential benefits. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 29:531–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Damjanovska M, Cvetko E, Hadzic A, Seliskar A, Plavec T, Mis K et al (2015) Neurotoxicity of perineural vs intraneural-extrafascicular injection of liposomal bupivacaine in the porcine model of sciatic nerve block. Anaesthesia. 70:1418–1426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    McAlvin JB, Padera RF, Shankarappa SA, Reznor G, Kwon AH, Chiang HH et al (2014) Multivesicular liposomal bupivacaine at the sciatic nerve. Biomaterials. 35:4557–4564

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Zel J, Hadzic A, Cvetko E, Seliskar A, Damjanovska M, Kuroda MM et al (2019) Neurological and histological outcomes after subarachnoid injection of a liposomal bupivacaine suspension in pigs: a pilot study. Br J Anaesth 122:379–387

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Cohen B, Glosser L, Saab R, Walters M, Salih A, Zafeer-Khan M et al (2019) Incidence of adverse events attributable to bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension or plain bupivacaine for postoperative pain in pediatric surgical patients: a retrospective matched cohort analysis. Paediatr Anaesth 29:169–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Aggarwal N (2018) Local anesthetics systemic toxicity association with exparel (bupivacaine liposome)- a pharmacovigilance evaluation. Expert Opin Drug Saf 17:581–587

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Springer BD, Mason JB, Odum SM (2018) Systemic safety of liposomal bupivacaine in simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33:97–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Ilfeld BM, Viscusi ER, Hadzic A, Minkowitz HS, Morren MD, Lookabaugh J et al (2015) Safety and side effect profile of liposome bupivacaine (exparel) in peripheral nerve blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med 40:572–582

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Felling DR, Jackson MW, Ferraro J, Battaglia MA, Albright JJ, Wu J et al (2018) Liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block versus epidural analgesia in a colon and rectal surgery enhanced recovery pathway: a randomized clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 61:1196–1204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Danoff JR, Goel R, Henderson RA, Fraser J, Sharkey PF (2018) Periarticular ropivacaine cocktail is equivalent to liposomal bupivacaine cocktail in bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33:2455–2459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Zlotnicki JP, Hamlin BR, Plakseychuk AY, Levison TJ, Rothenberger SD, Urish KL (2018) Liposomal bupivacaine vs plain bupivacaine in periarticular injection for control of pain and early motion in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, prospective study. J Arthroplast 33:2460–2464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Hyland SJ, Deliberato DG, Fada RA, Romanelli MJ, Collins CL, Wasielewski RC (2019) Liposomal bupivacaine versus standard periarticular injection in total knee arthroplasty with regional anesthesia: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplast 34:488–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Premkumar A, Samady H, Slone H, Hash R, Karas S, Xerogeanes J (2016) Liposomal bupivacaine for pain control after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, positive-controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 44:1680–1686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Kharitonov V (2014) A review of the compatibility of liposome bupivacaine with other drug products and commonly used implant materials. Postgrad Med 126:129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Richard BM, Rickert DE, Doolittle D, Mize A, Liu J, Lawson CF (2011) Pharmacokinetic compatibility study of lidocaine with exparel in yucatan miniature pigs. ISRN Pharm 2011:582351

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Weldon C, Ji T, Nguyen M-T, Rwei A, Wang W, Hao Y et al (2018) Nanoscale bupivacaine formulations to enhance the duration and safety of intravenous regional anesthesia. ACS Nano 13:18–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Zhan C, Wang W, McAlvin JB, Guo S, Timko BP, Santamaria C, Kohane DS (2016) Phototriggered local anesthesia. Nano Lett 16:177–181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Tsuchiya H, Ueno T, Mizogami M, Takakura K (2010) Local anesthetics structure-dependently interact with anionic phospholipid membranes to modify the fluidity. Chem Biol Interact 183:19–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Davis MS, Marrero-Berrios I, Perez XI, Maguire T, Radhakrishnan P, Manchikalapati D et al (2017) Alginate-liposomal construct for bupivacaine delivery and msc function regulation. Drug Deliv Transl Res 8:226–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    El-Say KM, El-Sawy HS (2017) Polymeric nanoparticles: Promising platform for drug delivery. Int J Pharm 528:675–691

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Swider E, Koshkina O, Tel J, Cruz LJ, de Vries IJM, Srinivas M (2018) Customizing poly(lactic- co -glycolic acid) particles for biomedical applications. Acta Biomater 73:38–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Jiang R, Liu H, Liu M, Tian J, Huang Q, Huang H et al (2017) A facile one-pot mannich reaction for the construction of fluorescent polymeric nanoparticles with aggregation-induced emission feature and their biological imaging. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 81:416–421

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Liu J, Lam JWY, Tang BZ (2009) Acetylenic polymers- syntheses, structures, and functions. Chem Rev 109:5799–5867

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Jiang R, Liu M, Li C, Huang Q, Huang H, Wan Q et al (2017) Facile fabrication of luminescent polymeric nanoparticles containing dynamic linkages via a one-pot multicomponent reaction: synthesis, aggregation-induced emission and biological imaging. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 80:708–714

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Huang H, Xu D, Liu M, Jiang R, Mao L, Huang Q et al (2017) Direct encapsulation of aie-active dye with beta cyclodextrin terminated polymers: self-assembly and biological imaging. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 78:862–867

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Huang H, Liu M, Jiang R, Chen J, Mao L, Wen Y et al (2018) Facile modification of nanodiamonds with hyperbranched polymers based on supramolecular chemistry and their potential for drug delivery. J Colloid Interface Sci 513:198–204

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Long Z, Liu M, Wang K, Deng F, Xu D, Liu L et al (2016) Facile synthesis of aie-active amphiphilic polymers: Self-assembly and biological imaging applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 66:215–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Tian J, Jiang R, Gao P, Xu D, Mao L, Zeng G et al (2017) Synthesis and cell imaging applications of amphiphilic aie-active poly(amino acid)s. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 79:563–569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Huang L, Yang S, Chen J, Tian J, Huang Q, Huang H et al (2019) A facile surface modification strategy for fabrication of fluorescent silica nanoparticles with the aggregation-induced emission dye through surface-initiated cationic ring opening polymerization. Mater Sci Eng C 94:270–278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Cao QY, Jiang R, Liu M, Wan Q, Xu D, Tian J et al (2017) Preparation of aie-active fluorescent polymeric nanoparticles through a catalyst-free thiol-yne click reaction for bioimaging applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 80:411–416

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Liu Y, Mao L, Liu X, Liu M, Xu D, Jiang R et al (2017) A facile strategy for fabrication of aggregation-induced emission (aie) active fluorescent polymeric nanoparticles (fpns) via post modification of synthetic polymers and their cell imaging. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 79:590–595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Zhang X, Wang K, Liu M, Zhang X, Tao L, Chena Y et al (2015) Polymeric aie-based nanoprobes for biomedical applications- recent advances and perspectives. Nanoscale 7:11486–11508

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Wan Q, Huang Q, Liu M, Xu D, Huang H, Zhang X et al (2017) Aggregation-induced emission active luminescent polymeric nanoparticles: non-covalent fabrication methodologies and biomedical applications. Appl Mater Today 9:145–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Cao Q, Jiang R, Liu M, Wan Q, Xu D, Tian J et al (2017) Microwave-assisted multicomponent reactions for rapid synthesis of aie-active fluorescent polymeric nanoparticles by post-polymerization method. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 80:578–583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Jiang R, Liu M, Huang H, Mao L, Huang Q, Wen Y et al (2018) Facile fabrication of organic dyed polymer nanoparticles with aggregation-induced emission using an ultrasound-assisted multicomponent reaction and their biological imaging. J Colloid Interface Sci 519:137–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Fredenberg S, Wahlgren M, Reslow M, Axelsson A (2011) The mechanisms of drug release in poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based drug delivery systems—a review. Int J Pharm 415:34–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Zlomke C, Barth M, Mader K (2019) Polymer degradation induced drug precipitation in plga implants - why less is sometimes more. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 139:142–152

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Wang CE, Stayton PS, Pun SH, Convertine AJ (2015) Polymer nanostructures synthesized by controlled living polymerization for tumor-targeted drug delivery. J Control Release 219:345–354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Liu L, Ye Q, Lu M, Lo YC, Hsu YH, Wei MC et al (2015) A new approach to reduce toxicities and to improve bioavailabilities of platinum-containing anti-cancer nanodrugs. Sci Rep 5:10881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Mozar FS, Chowdhury EH (2018) Pegylation of carbonate apatite nanoparticles prevents opsonin binding and enhances tumor accumulation of gemcitabine. J Pharm Sci 107:2497–2508

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Zhang P, Wang Y, Lian J, Shen Q, Wang C, Ma B, and et al. Engineering the surface of smart nanocarriers using a ph-/thermal-/gsh-responsive polymer zipper for precise tumor targeting therapy in vivo. Adv Mater. 2017;29.

  117. 117.

    Beldman TJ, Senders ML, Alaarg A, Perez-Medina C, Tang J, Zhao Y, Fay F et al (2017) Hyaluronan nanoparticles selectively target plaque-associated macrophages and improve plaque stability in atherosclerosis. ACS Nano 11:5785–5799

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Leal-Lopes C, Grazioli G, Mares-Guia TR, Coelho-Sampaio T, Sogayar MC. Polymerized laminin incorporation into alginate-based microcapsules reduces pericapsular overgrowth and inflammation. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2019.

  119. 119.

    Casey LM, Kakade S, Decker JT, Rose JA, Deans K, Shea LD et al (2019) Cargo-less nanoparticles program innate immune cell responses to toll-like receptor activation. Biomaterials 218:119333

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Newland B, Moloney TC, Fontana G, Browne S, Abu-Rub MT, Dowd E et al (2013) The neurotoxicity of gene vectors and its amelioration by packaging with collagen hollow spheres. Biomaterials. 34:2130–2141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Satchi-Fainaro R, Puder M, Davies JW, Tran HT, Sampson DA, Greene AK et al (2004) Targeting angiogenesis with a conjugate of hpma copolymer and tnp-470. Nat Med 10:255–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Görner T, Grefa R, Michenota D, Sommerb F, Tranc MN, Dellacherie E (1999) Lidocaine-loaded biodegradable nanospheres. I. Optimization of the drug incorporation into the polymer matrix. J Control Release 57:259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Govender T, Stolnik S, Garnett MC, Illum L, Davis SS (1999) Plga nanoparticles prepared by nanoprecipitation- drug loading and release studies of a water soluble drug. J Control Release 57:171–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Morales Moraes C, Prado de Matos A, Grillo R, de Melo NFS, de Paula E, Filho NLD et al (2011) Screening of formulation variables for the preparation of poly(<i>ε</i>-caprolactone) nanocapsules containing the local anesthetic benzocaine. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 11:2450–2457

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Grillo R, de Melo NF, de Araujo DR, de Paula E, Rosa AH, Fraceto LF (2010) Polymeric alginate nanoparticles containing the local anesthetic bupivacaine. J Drug Target 18:688–699

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Muniz BV, Baratelli D, Di Carla S, Serpe L, da Silva CB, Guilherme VA et al (2018) Hybrid hydrogel composed of polymeric nanocapsules co-loading lidocaine and prilocaine for topical intraoral anesthesia. Sci Rep 8:17972

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Ramos Campos EV, Silva de Melo NF, Guilherme VA, de Paula E, Rosa AH, de Araújo DR et al (2013) Preparation and characterization of poly(ε-caprolactone) nanospheres containing the local anesthetic lidocaine. J Pharm Sci 102:215–226

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Wang T, Hurwitz O, Shimada SG, Tian D, Dai F, Zhou J, Ma C, LaMotte RH (2018) Anti-nociceptive effects of bupivacaine-encapsulated plga nanoparticles applied to the compressed dorsal root ganglion in mice. Neurosci Lett 668:154–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Weldon CB, Tsui JH, Shankarappa SA, Nguyen VT, Ma M, Anderson DG et al (2012) Electrospun drug-eluting sutures for local anesthesia. J Control Release 161:903–909

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Ekladious I, Colson YL, Grinstaff MW (2018) Polymer–drug conjugate therapeutics: Advances, insights and prospects. Nat Rev Drug Discov 18:273–294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Moraes CM, de Matos AP, de Lima R, Rosa AH, de Paula E, Fraceto LF (2007) Initial development and characterization of plga nanospheres containing ropivacaine. J Biol Phys 33:455–461

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Silva De Melo NF, De Araújo DR, Grillo R, Moraes CM, De Matos AP, Ed P, Rosa AH, Fraceto LF (2012) Benzocaine-loaded polymeric nanocapsules: Study of the anesthetic activities. J Pharm Sci 101:1157–1165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Cereda CMS, Mecatti D, Papini J, Bueno D, Franz-Montan M, Rocha T et al (2018) Bupivacaine in alginate and chitosan nanoparticles: An in vivo evaluation of efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and local toxicity. J Pain Res 11:683–691

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Sivakumaran D, Maitland D, Hoare T (2011) Injectable microgel-hydrogel composites for prolonged small-molecule drug delivery. Biomacromolecules. 12:4112–4120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Qu H, Costache MC, Inan S, Cowan A, Devore D, Ducheyne P (2015) Local, controlled delivery of local anesthetics in vivo from polymer—xerogel composites. Pharm Res 33:729–738

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Hutchins J, Taylor W (2017) An evaluation of the analgesic effect of anestagel on mechanical allodynia in a rat model of postoperative incisional pain. J Pain Res 10:2807–2813

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Bagshaw KR, Hanenbaum CL, Carbone EJ, Lo KW, Laurencin CT, Walker J et al (2015) Pain management via local anesthetics and responsive hydrogels. Ther Deliv 6:165–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Alejo T, Andreu V, Mendoza G, Sebastian V, Arruebo M (2018) Controlled release of bupivacaine using hybrid thermoresponsive nanoparticles activated via photothermal heating. J Colloid Interface Sci 523:234–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Hoare T, Young S, Lawlor MW, Kohane DS (2012) Thermoresponsive nanogels for prolonged duration local anesthesia. Acta Biomater 8:3596–3605

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Tan JP, Goh CH, Tam KC (2007) Comparative drug release studies of two cationic drugs from ph-responsive nanogels. Eur J Pharm Sci 32:340–348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Cavalli R, Argenziano M, Vigna E, Giustetto P, Torres E, Aime S et al (2015) Preparation and in vitro characterization of chitosan nanobubbles as theranostic agents. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 129:39–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Jing Y, Zhu Y, Yang X, Shen J, Li C (2011) Ultrasound-triggered smart drug release from multifunctional core-shell capsules one-step fabricated by coaxial electrospray method. Langmuir. 27:1175–1180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Chen W, Cheng CA, Zink JI (2019) Spatial, temporal, and dose control of drug delivery using noninvasive magnetic stimulation. ACS Nano 13:1292–1308

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Thevenot J, Oliveira H, Sandre O, Lecommandoux S (2013) Magnetic responsive polymer composite materials. Chem Soc Rev 42:7099–7116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Karimi M, Ghasemi A, Sahandi Zangabad P, Rahighi R, Moosavi Basri SM, Mirshekari H et al (2016) Smart micro/nanoparticles in stimulus-responsive drug/gene delivery systems. Chem Soc Rev 45:1457–1501

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Shin BY, Cha BG, Jeong JH, Kim J (2017) Injectable macroporous ferrogel microbeads with a high structural stability for magnetically actuated drug delivery. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9:31372–31380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Wang H, Mu Q, Revia R, Wang K, Zhou X, Pauzauskie PJ, and et al. Chitosan-gated magnetic-responsive nanocarrier for dual-modal optical imaging, switchable drug release, and synergistic therapy. Adv Healthc Mater. 2017;6.

  148. 148.

    Mohapatra A, Harris MA, LeVine D, Ghimire M, Jennings JA, Morshed BI et al (2018) Magnetic stimulus responsive vancomycin drug delivery system based on chitosan microbeads embedded with magnetic nanoparticles. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 106:2169–2176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Wu X, Yang H, Yang W, Chen X, Gao J, Gong X et al (2019) Nanoparticle-based diagnostic and therapeutic systems for brain tumors. J Mater Chem B 7:4734–4750

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Chiang CS, Shen YS, Liu JJ, Shyu WC, Chen SY (2016) Synergistic combination of multistage magnetic guidance and optimized ligand density in targeting a nanoplatform for enhanced cancer therapy. Adv Healthc Mater 5:2131–2141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Garg NK, Tandel N, Jadon RS, Tyagi RK, Katare OP (2018) Lipid-polymer hybrid nanocarrier-mediated cancer therapeutics: current status and future directions. Drug Discov Today 23:1610–1621

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Rao S, Prestidge CA (2016) Polymer-lipid hybrid systems: merging the benefits of polymeric and lipid-based nanocarriers to improve oral drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 13:691–707

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Sgorla D, Bunhak ÉJ, Cavalcanti OA, Fonte P, Sarmento B (2016) Exploitation of lipid-polymeric matrices at nanoscale for drug delivery applications. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 13:1301–1309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Howell BA, Chauhan A (2009) Bupivacaine binding to pegylated liposomes. Anesth Analg 109:678–682

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Bose RJC, Ravikumar R, Karuppagounder V, Bennet D, Rangasamy S, Thandavarayan RA (2017) Lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticle-mediated therapeutics delivery: advances and challenges. Drug Discov Today 22:1258–1265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Teixeira MC, Carbone C, Souto EB (2017) Beyond liposomes: recent advances on lipid based nanostructures for poorly soluble/poorly permeable drug delivery. Prog Lipid Res 68:1–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Sokolsky-Papkov M, Golovanevski L, Domb AJ, Weiniger CF (2011) Long-acting poly(dl:Lactic acid-castor oil) 3:7-bupivacaine formulation: Effect of hydrophobic additives. Pharm Res 28:3265–3273

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Ickowicz DE, Golovanevski L, Domb AJ, Weiniger CF (2014) Extended duration local anesthetic agent in a rat paw model. Int J Pharm 468:152–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    de Melo NF, Grillo R, Guilherme VA, de Araujo DR, de Paula E, Rosa AH (2011) and at el. Poly(lactide-co-glycolide) nanocapsules containing benzocaine: Influence of the composition of the oily nucleus on physico-chemical properties and anesthetic activity. Pharm Res 28:1984–1994

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Li Q, Cai T, Huang Y, Xia X, Cole SPC, Cai Y. A review of the structure, preparation, and application of nlcs, pnps, and plns. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2017;7.

  161. 161.

    Wang J, Zhang L, Chi H, Wang S (2016) An alternative choice of lidocaine-loaded liposomes: Lidocaine-loaded lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles for local anesthetic therapy. Drug Deliv 23:1254–1260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Ma P, Li T, Xing H, Wang S, Sun Y, Sheng X et al (2017) Local anesthetic effects of bupivacaine loaded lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Biomed Pharmacother 89:689–695

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Khanal M, Gohil SV, Kuyinu E, Kan H-M, Knight BE, Baumbauer KM et al (2018) Injectable nanocomposite analgesic delivery system for musculoskeletal pain management. Acta Biomater 74:280–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Yue Y, Zhao D, Yin Q (2018) Hyaluronic acid modified nanostructured lipid carriers for transdermal bupivacaine delivery: In vitro and in vivo anesthesia evaluation. Biomed Pharmacother 98:813–820

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Li A, Yang F, Xin J, Bai X (2019) An efficient and long-acting local anesthetic: Ropivacaine-loaded lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles for the control of pain. Int J Nanomedicine 14:913–920

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC#81771205, #91632113), the Natural Science Foundation and Major Basic Research Program of Shanghai (16JC1420500, 16JC1420502), and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS #2017-I2M-3-008).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

YH made substantial contributions to the conception, paper collecting, and analyzing of the work; and drafting the work; and final approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. LQ made substantial contributions to the paper collecting and analyzing of the work; and drafting the work; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. YH made substantial contributions to conception of the work; and revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. CM made substantial contributions to conception of the work; and revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yuguang Huang or Chao Ma.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

He, Y., Qin, L., Huang, Y. et al. Advances of Nano-Structured Extended-Release Local Anesthetics. Nanoscale Res Lett 15, 13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-019-3241-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Extended-release
  • Local anesthetics
  • Nano-scale
  • Liposomes
  • Polymersome
  • Hybrid