↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1633-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peng Tian, Wen-bin Liu, Zhi-jun Li, Gui-jun Xu, Yu-ting Huang, Xin-long Ma

Abstract

There is no consistent conclusion regarding the efficacy and safety of the intravenous administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) for reducing blood loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed a meta-analysis of comparative trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TXA in revision TKA. We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Two authors selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. A pooled meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Four non-RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis indicated that the use of TXA was related to significantly less transfusion requirements (RD = -0.25; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.08; P = 0.005), drainage volume (MD = -321.07; 95% CI: -445.13 to -197.01, P = 0.005), hemoglobin reduction (MD = -0.52; 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.25, P = 0.0001), and length of hospital stay (MD = -2.36; 95% CI: -4.00 to -0.71, P = 0.005). No significant differences in the incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) were noted. The use of TXA for patients undergoing revision TKA may reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements without increasing the risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism. Due to the limited quality of the currently available evidence, more high-quality RCTs are required.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Unspecified 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 53%
Unspecified 3 6%
Linguistics 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 16 33%