Skip to main content

Impact of tranexamic acid on visualization in full endoscopic spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial

In brief

Tranexamic acid did not improve endoscopic spine surgery views in 58 patients

In a randomized trial of 58 patients having lumbar disc surgery, intravenous tranexamic acid did not improve surgeons' or independent reviewers' ratings of visibility; automated video measures were also similar between groups. Views were good or excellent in most cases, and no drug-related adverse events were observed, but the results do not support routine use to improve visibility.

Journal
Neurosurgical focus (Q1)
Published
1 October 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Joao Meira, Ana Ferreira, Marisa Cunha, Osvaldo Sousa, Paulo Pereira, Pedro Santos Silva
PMID
42822046
DOI
10.3171/2026.7.FOCUS26349

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine (top studies of the week, 4 October 2026): TXA improves visualization in full‑endoscopic spine surgery
  • Picked for Gastroenterology (top studies of the week, 4 October 2026): High-quality evidence in a top journal
  • Picked for Spine Surgery (top studies of the week, 4 October 2026): TXA effect on visualization in full‑endoscopic lumbar surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether prophylactic administration of intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) improves intraoperative visualization during full-endoscopic lumbar spine surgery for single-level degenerative disc herniation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted including adult patients undergoing single-level, full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1-to-1 ratio to receive either intravenous TXA (10 mg/kg, maximum 1 g) prior to anesthesia induction or standard care without TXA. Intraoperative visualization was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and a 4-grade visualization scale by the operating surgeon and two independent evaluators, all of whom were blinded to group allocation. Secondary outcomes included operative parameters such as surgery duration, irrigation fluid volume, pump pressure, and the need to reduce blood pressure. An automated video analysis was performed to evaluate blood in the endoscopic field. Outcomes included a blood pixel ratio (BPR) and a derived visualization score (DVZ). RESULTS: All 58 randomized participants completed the study. Visualization quality was high in both cohorts. The median surgeon-reported VAS was 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 6-9) in both the TXA and control groups (p = 0.4). Surgeon visual classifications were similar (p = 0.8), with "excellent" or "good" ratings reported in 72% of the TXA group and 79% of the control group. Independent evaluator VAS scores yielded equivalent medians of 8 (p = 0.6 for evaluator 1, p = 0.8 for evaluator 2). A univariate linear regression evaluating the treatment effect of TXA on the mean VAS score showed an estimated difference of -0.31 (95% CI -1.0 to 0.41; p = 0.57). The median DVZ (9.30 vs 9.22; p = 0.3) and the median BPR (3.55% vs 4.57%; p = 0.3) were similar in both groups. The median operative duration was 50 (IQR 40-65) minutes for TXA and 60 (IQR 45-70) minutes for controls (p = 0.2). No thromboembolic complications or TXA-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic lumbar discectomy offers good or excellent intraoperative visualization in most cases. This study did not demonstrate a significant improvement in intraoperative visualization with the prophylactic administration of intravenous TXA. While TXA appeared safe, its routine use specifically to enhance visual clarity in single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy was not currently supported by these data.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.