Systematic review and meta-analysis of topical tranexamic acid in spine surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic drug associated with reduced blood loss in a range of surgical specialties, including neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiac surgery. Concerns about venous thromboembolism and seizures from intravenous (IV) TXA have led to increased use of topical TXA. Given the relative scarcity of the literature on topical TXA compared with that on IV TXA within neurosurgery, the authors aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety, efficacy, and optimal administration of topical TXA in a wide range of spinal procedures and pathologies. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines, Cochrane risk of bias tool, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to extract randomized controlled trials and high-quality case-control and cross-sectional/cohort studies (adult studies only) from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase published between 2016 and 2023. Studies were analyzed by two independent reviewers for variables including dosage, TXA administration route, type of spine procedure, blood loss, adverse events including thromboembolism and infection, postoperative hemoglobin level, and hospitalization length. Pooled analysis comparing intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin levels, and hospitalization length of stay on the basis of route of TXA administration was conducted. RESULTS: Four cohort studies, 1 cross-sectional study, 1 case-control study, and 12 randomized controlled trials, together involving 2045 patients, were included. The most common route of topical TXA administration was via TXA in saline solution. Other routes of topical TXA included retrograde injection and TXA-soaked Gelfoam. In pooled analysis, topical TXA significantly reduced visible blood loss (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.22, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.00001), postoperative blood loss (SMD -1.63, 95% CI -2.03 to -1.22), and length of hospital stay (SMD -1.02, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.61), as well as higher postoperative hemoglobin (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.34-0.83), compared with non-TXA controls. No significant differences in outcomes were found between topical and IV TXA or between combined (topical and IV) and IV TXA. Thromboembolism and infection rates did not significantly differ between any TXA administration group and non-TXA controls. CONCLUSIONS: In pooled analyses, topical TXA was associated with decreased perioperative blood loss in a wide range of scenarios, including cervical spine surgery and thoracolumbar trauma, as well as in patients with a thromboembolic history.
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 | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".