4.5 Review

Is tranexamic acid effective and safe in spinal surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
Volume 22, Issue 9, Pages 1950-1957

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2774-9

Keywords

Tranexamic acid; Spine; Blood loss; Surgical; Meta-analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21205087]
  2. Tianjin Health Bureau Science and Technology Foundation [2011kz117]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present meta-analysis aimed at assessing the effectiveness and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in reducing blood loss and transfusion in spinal surgery. Systematic searches of all studies published through March 2012 were identified from PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane library, Science Direct, and other databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the present study. Two independent reviewers searched and assessed the literature. Mean difference (MD) of blood loss and blood transfusions, risk ratios (RR) of transfusion rate and of deep vein thrombosis rate in the TXA-treated group versus placebo group were pooled throughout the study. The meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.1 software. Six placebo-controlled RCTs encompassing 411 patients met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. The use of TXA significantly reduced both total blood loss [MD = -285.35, 95 % CI (-507.03 to -63.67), P = 0.01] as well as the number of patients requiring blood transfusion [RR = 0.71, 95 % CI (0.54-0.92), P = 0.01]. None of the patients in the treatment group had deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism. Intravenous use of TXA for patients undergoing spinal surgery is effective and safe. It reduces total blood loss and the need for blood transfusion, particularly in the using of high dosage of TXA (a parts per thousand yen15 mg/kg), yet does not increase the risk of postoperative DVT. Due to the limitation of the quality of the evidence currently available, high-quality RCTs are required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available