Topical Tranexamic Acid in Breast Reconstruction: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Excess fluid accumulation (seroma/hematoma) around the breast implant after reconstruction can lead to significant complications. Topical administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) may reduce fluid accumulation and reduce postoperative complications. This trial aims to investigate whether TXA-treated mastectomy pockets will exhibit less postoperative fluid production and complications. METHODS: This paired, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial enrolled patients undergoing bilateral mastectomies with immediate direct-to-implant reconstruction. In each patient, one breast was randomized to receive 3 g of TXA (100 cc), and the other received 100 cc of normal saline. The blinded solutions were soaked in the mastectomy pocket for 5 minutes before implant placement. Postoperatively, daily drain outputs, complications, and baseline demographics were recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-three eligible patients, representing 106 breasts, were enrolled. All patients underwent bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomies. After randomization, TXA was placed in the right breast in 30 patients (56.6%). The use of topical TXA resulted in a mean drain output reduction of 30.5% (range, -83.6% to 26.6%). Drains on the TXA-treated breast were eligible for removal 1.4 days (range, 0 to 4 days) sooner than the control side. The TXA-treated group had three complications (5.67%) versus 15 (28.3%) in the control group (OR, 0.1920; P = 0.0129). Specifically, for operative hematomas, the TXA group had none (0%), versus three in the control group (5.7%) (OR, 0.1348; P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Soaking the mastectomy bed with 3% topical TXA before implant insertion leads to a decrease in drain output and a decrease in complications. Topical administration of TXA represents an option to decrease complications in alloplastic breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".