Systemic and Topical Use of Tranexamic Acid in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Combination of narrative and systematic literature reviews. Objectives Massive perioperative blood loss in complex spinal surgery often requires blood transfusions and can negatively affect patient outcome. Systemic use of the antifibrinolytic agent tranexamic acid (TXA) has become widely used in the management of surgical bleeding. We review the clinical evidence for the use of intravenous TXA as a hemostatic agent in spinal surgery and discuss the emerging role for its complementary use as a topical agent to reduce perioperative blood loss from the surgical site. Through a systematic review of published and ongoing investigations on topical TXA for spinal surgery, we wish to make spine practitioners aware of this option and to suggest opportunities for further investigation in the field. Methods A narrative review of systemic TXA in spinal surgery and topical TXA in surgery was conducted. Furthermore, a systematic search (using PRISMA guidelines) of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases as well as World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov (National Institutes of Health), and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registries was conducted to identify both published literature and ongoing clinical trials on topical TXA in spinal surgery. Results Of 1,631 preliminary search results, 2 published studies were included in the systematic review. Out of 285 ongoing clinical trials matching the search criteria, a total of 4 relevant studies were included and reviewed. Conclusion Intravenous TXA is established as an efficacious hemostatic agent in spinal surgery. Use of topical TXA in surgery suggests similar hemostatic efficacy and potentially improved safety as compared with intravenous TXA. For spinal surgery, the literature on topical TXA is sparse but promising, warranting further clinical investigation and consideration as a clinical option in cases with significant anticipated surgical site blood loss.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".