Intravenous Tranexamic Acid for Reducing Perioperative Blood Loss During Revision Surgery for Vancouver Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy and safety of intravenous tranexamic acid for reducing perioperative blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusions in revision surgery for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 129 patients who underwent revision surgeries because of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures from January 2008 to September 2018. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received intravenous tranexamic acid (n = 72) or not (n = 57). The two groups were compared in terms of estimated intraoperative blood loss, visible blood loss, hidden blood loss, the volume of allogeneic blood transfusion and the incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). Patients were also compared depending on the Vancouver classification (Vancouver type B1, B2, and B3). RESULTS: Regardless of the subtype of Vancouver classification, patients who received tranexamic acid showed significantly lower estimated intraoperative blood loss, visible blood loss, hidden blood loss, and allogeneic blood transfusion volume. Use of tranexamic acid was not associated with significant changes in the incidence of postoperative symptomatic VTE. Similar results were obtained with subgroups of patients who had the Vancouver type B1, B2, or B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of intravenous tranexamic acid can safely and effectively reduce perioperative blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusions in revision surgery for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures, without increasing the risk of symptomatic VTE.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".