RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: In this article, the authors systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in surgeries for spinal trauma. METHODS: Potentially relevant academic articles were identified from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Secondary sources were identified from the references of the included literature. RevMan software was used to analyze the pooled data. RESULTS: A total of 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-RCTs were included in the review. There were significant differences in total blood loss (standard mean difference [SMD] = -2.54 [95% CI, -3.72, -1.37], P = 0.0001), intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -0.96 [95% CI, -1.28, -0.64], P < 0.00001), postoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.42 [95% CI, -1.72, -1.11], P < 0.00001), and length of hospital stay (SMD = -3.73 [95% CI, -4.41, -3.06], P = 0.00001). No significant differences were found regarding transfusion requirement, operative duration, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis indicates that the use of TXA in spinal surgery decreases blood loss and duration of hospital stay while not increasing the risk of side effects such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study aims to provide clinicians who operate on spine trauma with information on the use of tranexamic acid to decrease blood loss and related complications.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Use of ICP monitoring is considered to be part of "standard of care" in management of severe traumatic brain injury, but it is rarely used in developing countries. The authors present a study which evaluates the efficacy and outcomes of ICP monitoring at a high-volume trauma center in India. METHODS: Data on management and outcomes for 126 patients who were admitted with diffuse traumatic brain injury (GCS 3-8) were studied prospectively over an 18-month period. These patients were treated by one of the two specific protocols: ICP monitoring-based or non-ICP monitoring-based. The primary outcome was measured based on 2 weeks mortality and GOS-E at 1, 3, and 6 months. Secondary outcome was measured based on need for brain-specific treatment, length of ICU stay, and radiation exposure. RESULTS: Mortality in a subset of patients who underwent surgical intervention later due to increased ICP values, drop in GCS, or radiological deterioration was noted to be significantly lower in the ICP monitoring group (p = 0.03), in spite of statistically insignificant difference in overall mortality rates between groups. GOS-E scores at 1 month were significantly better (p = 0.033) in ICP monitoring group, even though they equalized at 3 and 6 months. The need for brain-specific treatment (p < 0.001), radiation exposure (p < 0.001), and length of ICU stay (p = 0.013) was significantly lower in the ICP monitoring group. CONCLUSIONS: ICP monitoring-based treatment protocol helps in achieving faster recovery; lowers mortality rates in operated patients; and reduces ICU stay, radiation exposure, and the need for brain-specific treatment.
