Tranexamic Acid Reduces Allogenic Transfusion in Revision Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revision THA is associated with high blood loss and a high probability of blood transfusion in the perioperative period. In November 2003, government legislation established the Blood Utilization Program at our center to reduce the rate and risks associated with allogenic transfusion. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to (1) determine whether the allogenic transfusion rate in patients undergoing revision THA decreased in those who were reviewed preoperatively by the Blood Utilization Program versus those who were not; (2) determine whether tranexamic acid reduced the rate of transfusion; and (3) identify potential perioperative clinical parameters that are associated with an increased risk of blood transfusion. METHODS: We included all 159 patients who underwent revision THA from January 2006 to October 2008 having either a socket and/or femoral stem revision except those having only a liner exchange. One hundred and one patients attended the Blood Utilization Program preoperatively and 58 patients did not (ie, they required urgent/emergency surgery). RESULTS: The Blood Utilization Program referral made no difference in transfusion rate or transfusion amount; however, the transfusion rates and amount were decreased by 8% and one unit, respectively. In patients referred to the Blood Utilization Program, the intraoperative use of tranexamic acid (an antifibrinolytic) was associated with reduced transfusions, regardless of dosage; preoperative erythropoietin tended to reduce transfusions while preoperative oral iron supplements did not. CONCLUSIONS: To further increase the relevance of the blood utilization program, the guidelines for patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty need to be redefined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the guidelines online for a complete description of level of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".