Intravenous tranexamic acid and intraoperative visualization during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a double‐blind randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bleeding during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) can hinder surgical progress and may be associated with increased complications. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic that is known to reduce operative bleeding. The current study was designed to assess the effect of adjunctive intravenous tranexamic acid on intraoperative bleeding and the quality of the surgical field during ESS. METHODS: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Patients undergoing ESS for the primary diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis with or without polyposis were included. Sample size calculation based on a clinically relevant difference in the Wormald surgical field score yielded a sample of 28. In addition to standard measures to minimize blood loss, study patients received intravenous tranexamic acid with control patients receiving intravenous normal saline. Outcome measures included the Wormald grading scale to assess the intraoperative surgical field and estimated blood loss based on suction container contents with irrigation fluid subtracted. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (median age, 45 years; range, 23-80 years) were included in the study. Diagnoses included chronic rhinosinusitis without polyposis (n = 5), chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis (n = 23). The use of the tranexamic acid was not associated with a statistically significant decrease in estimated blood loss (201 vs 231 mL; p = 0.60) or Wormald grading scale (5.84 vs 5.80; p = 0.93). There were no adverse events or complications during the study. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive intravenous tranexamic acid does not appear to result in a clinically meaningful reduction in blood loss or improve visualization of the surgical field during ESS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".