INTRAARTICULAR EPSILON AMINOCAPROIC ACID VERSUS TRANEXAMIC ACID IN TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare the clinical efficacy of intraarticular epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA) and tranexamic acid (TXA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: This study was a prospective, single-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial, including sixty patients with osteoarthritis of the knee divided into two groups of 30 patients. In the TXA group, 1 g of TXA (0.05 g/ml) was applied intraarticularly, and in the EACA group, 4 g of EACA (0.2 g/ml) was applied intraarticularly. Serum hemoglobin (Hgb) and hematocrit (Htb) were measured during the preoperatively and 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. The range of motion and pain were evaluated by clinical examination. To evaluate knee function before and 2 months after surgery, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) questionnaire was used. RESULTS: In total, 56 (93.3%) patients were evaluated up to the second postoperative month. No significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05) was found in the decrease in Hgb or Htb at 24 or 48 hours. Regarding assessment of the pain, WOMAC score and gain in knee flexion, no significant advantages up to 60 days after surgery (p > 0.05) were found. CONCLUSIONS: The decrease in Hgb and Htb during the first 48 hours postoperatively and the risk of transfusion were similar with the intraarticular use of 1 g of TXA and 4 g of EACA in TKA. The possible benefits regarding knee pain, gain in flexion and function were also similar for the two drugs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".