Trends in Tranexamic Acid Administration Amongst the International Plastic Surgery Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tranexamic acid (TXA) has gained widespread use across surgical disciplines due to its antifibrinolytic properties and favorable safety profile, yet standardized protocols for its use in aesthetic plastic surgery remain lacking. This study aimed to assess international trends, perceptions, and practices regarding TXA administration among board-certified plastic surgeons. A cross-sectional, anonymous survey was distributed electronically to all active members of The Aesthetic Society. The survey captured demographics, procedural usage, routes of administration, and perceived benefits or barriers associated with TXA. A total of 256 surgeons responded, with 69% reporting active use of TXA. Geographic variability was notable: usage was highest in Australia (100%) and Canada (92%) and lowest in South America and Asia (67%). Intravenous administration was the most common (36%), followed by topical (20%), tumescent (14%), and oral (3%); 27% reported case-dependent variation. TXA was most frequently used in facelifts (79%) and abdominoplasty (54%). Among non-users, 45.6% cited lack of robust data as the main deterrent. Most surgeons believed TXA reduced blood loss (93%), improved surgical field visibility (81%), and minimized ecchymosis (85%) and edema (85%), with 70% noting faster recovery. Importantly, 98% reported no thrombotic events in their practice. This is the first large-scale international survey assessing TXA use in aesthetic plastic surgery. Findings highlight variability in practice patterns and underscore the need for evidence-based guidelines to promote safe and consistent TXA usage across aesthetic procedures worldwide.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".