Xie Chengxin, Ren Yu, Chen Xiaoxiao, Zhu Yanwu, Jiang Jiao, Lu Bing, Luo Hua
Department of Orthopedics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, Zhejiang, 317000, China.
Department of Pharmacy, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, Zhejiang, 317000, China.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024 Dec 27;25(1):1074. doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-08191-6.
There is controversy regarding the efficacy of intravenous combined topical tranexamic acid. We conducted this study to systematically assess the effectiveness of intravenous combined topical tranexamic acid (combined TXA) in spinal surgery to guide clinical practice.
The review process was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central was conducted for RCTs and comparative cohort studies evaluating the effect of combined TXA on blood loss in spinal surgery. Outcomes such as intraoperative blood loss, total blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hemoglobin level on postoperative days 1 and 3, postoperative transfusion rates, and complications were analyzed.
Five studies covering 528 patients were included in the analysis. Combined TXA, compared with intravenous TXA, showed no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.18 for RCTs, P = 0.50 for the retrospective study), total blood loss (P = 0.085 for RCTs, P = 0.87 for the retrospective study), postoperative drainage (P = 0.137 for RCTs, P = 0.232 for the retrospective study), postoperative hemoglobin (P = 0.737 on postoperative day 1, P = 0.403 on postoperative day 3), postoperative transfusion rates (P = 0.202), and complications (P = 0.493).
Based on the available evidences, our meta-analysis failed to demonstrate the apparent advantages of combined tranexamic acid in spinal surgery. Clinical decisions regarding hemostatic methods should continue to be individualized based on the patient's specific situation and the doctor's experience.
静脉联合局部应用氨甲环酸的疗效存在争议。我们开展本研究以系统评估静脉联合局部应用氨甲环酸(联合应用氨甲环酸)在脊柱手术中的有效性,以指导临床实践。
按照PRISMA指南进行文献回顾。对PubMed、EMBASE、科学网和考克兰中央对照试验注册库进行系统检索,以查找评估联合应用氨甲环酸对脊柱手术失血影响的随机对照试验(RCT)和比较队列研究。分析术中失血、总失血量、术后引流量、术后第1天和第3天的术后血红蛋白水平、术后输血率及并发症等结局指标。
纳入分析的有5项研究,共528例患者。与静脉应用氨甲环酸相比,联合应用氨甲环酸在术中失血(RCT中P = 0.18,回顾性研究中P = 0.50)、总失血量(RCT中P = 0.085,回顾性研究中P = 0.87)、术后引流量(RCT中P = 0.137,回顾性研究中P = 0.232)、术后血红蛋白水平(术后第1天P = 0.737,术后第3天P = 0.403)、术后输血率(P = 0.202)及并发症(P = 0.493)方面均无显著差异。
基于现有证据,我们的荟萃分析未能证明联合应用氨甲环酸在脊柱手术中的明显优势。关于止血方法的临床决策应继续根据患者的具体情况和医生的经验进行个体化选择。