Effect of the administration route on the hemostatic efficacy of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing short-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:

Hatter Matthew J.12,Pennington Zach3,Hsu Timothy I.2,Shooshani Tara2,Yale Olivia2,Pooladzandi Omead4,Solomon Sean S.12,Picton Bryce25,Ramanis Marlena12,Brown Nolan J.5,Hashmi Sohaib1,Lee Yu-Po1,Bhatia Nitin1,Pham Martin H.6

Affiliation:

1. Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and

2. University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California;

3. Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;

4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, California; and

5. Neurosurgery, University of California Irvine, Orange, California;

6. Department of Neurosurgery, University of California–San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an FDA-approved antifibrinolytic that is seeing increased popularity in spine surgery owing to its ability to reduce intraoperative blood loss (IOBL) and allogeneic transfusion requirements. The present study aimed to summarize the current literature on these formulations in the context of short-segment instrumented lumbar fusion including ≥ 1-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHODS The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were queried for all full-text English studies evaluating the use of topical TXA (tTXA), systemic TXA (sTXA), or combined tTXA+sTXA in patients undergoing PLIF. The primary endpoints of interest were operative time, IOBL, and total blood loss (TBL); secondary endpoints included venous thromboembolic complication occurrence, and allogeneic and autologous transfusion requirements. Outcomes were compared using random effects. Comparisons were made between the following treatment groups: sTXA, tTXA, and sTXA+tTXA. Given that sTXA is arguably the standard of care in the literature (i.e., the most common route of administration that to this point has been studied the most), the authors compared sTXA versus tTXA and sTXA versus sTXA+tTXA. Study heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test, and grouped analysis using the Hedge’s g test was performed for measurement of effect size. RESULTS Forty-five articles were identified, of which 17 met the criteria for inclusion with an aggregate of 1008 patients. TXA regimens included sTXA only, tTXA only, and various combinations of sTXA and tTXA. There were no significant differences in operative time, TBL, or postoperative drainage between the sTXA and tTXA groups or between the sTXA and sTXA+tTXA groups. CONCLUSIONS The present meta-analysis suggested clinical equipoise between isolated sTXA, isolated tTXA, and combinatorial tTXA+sTXA formulations as hemostatic adjuvants/neoadjuvants in short-segment fusion including ≥ 1-level PLIF. Given the theoretically lower venous thromboembolism risk associated with tTXA, additional investigations using large cohorts comparing these two formulations within the posterior fusion population are merited. Although TXA has been shown to be effective, there are insufficient data to support topical or systemic administration as superior within the open PLIF population.

Publisher

Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)

Reference36 articles.

1. Utility of tranexamic acid (TXA) for resection of intracranial meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis;Brown N

2. Encouragement for further study of tranexamic acid administration for sacroiliac joint fusion surgery;Beyer RS,2022

3. Use of tranexamic acid for elective resection of intracranial neoplasms: a systematic review;Brown NJ,2022

4. Association of tranexamic acid with decreased blood loss in patients undergoing laminectomy and fusion with posterior instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis;Brown NJ,2021

5. Total and hidden blood loss between open posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by Wiltse approach;Lei F,2020

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3