Comparison of Intraarticular Versus Combined Intravenous and Intraarticular Tranexamic Acid Administration in Patients Undergoing Primary Unilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Middle Eastern Patient Population.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to determine whether combined intravenous (IV) and intraarticular (IA) tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces blood loss and the requirement of blood transfusion compared to IA use alone in the middle eastern patients undergoing primary cemented unilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: The present study is a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RTC) comparing the efficacy of IA alone to combined IA and IV routes of TXA administration in patients undergoing primary cemented TKA using a tourniquet performed by two senior surgeons. There were 21 patients in the IA alone and 29 in the combined group. The primary outcome measure was blood transfusion requirement, hemoglobin drop, and the total estimated blood loss on day three of postoperative period. The secondary outcomes were complications including thromboembolic events, wound complications, periprosthetic infection, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of pain visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) as well as the range of motion (ROM) at one-year follow-up. Results: 0.96) on the third postoperative day in the IA alone group showed no statistically significant difference compared to that in the combined group. Moreover, there were no complications noted in patients of either group. At one-year follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two comparison groups regarding the mean PROs of pain VAS, WOMAC, and EQ-5D, as well as ROM. Conclusion: According to the obtained results, this RCT in the middle eastern patient population found no additional benefit of TXA administration through combined IV and IA route over the IA alone in reducing the requirement of blood transfusion and the total blood loss. Further similar studies with larger sample sizes are needed to ascertain the ideal route of TXA administration in patients undergoing primary TKA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".