Aims Antifibrinolytic agents, including tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA), have been shown to be safe and effective for decreasing perioperative blood loss and transfusion following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there are few prospective studies that directly compare these agents. The purpose of this study was to compare the benefits of intraoperative intravenous TXA with EACA. Patients and Methods A total of 235 patients (90 THA and 145 TKA) were enrolled in this prospective, randomized controlled trial at a single tertiary-care referral centre. In the THA cohort, 53.3% of the patients were female with a median age of 59.8 years (interquartile range (IQR) 53.3 to 68.1). In the TKA cohort, 63.4% of the patients were female with a median age of 65.1 years (IQR 59.4 to 69.5). Patients received either TXA (n = 119) or EACA (n = 116) in two doses intraoperatively. The primary outcome measures included change in haemoglobin level and blood volume, postoperative drainage, and rate of transfusion. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative complications, cost, and length of stay (LOS). Results TKA patients who received EACA had greater drainage (median 320 ml (IQR 185 to 420) vs 158 ml (IQR 110 to 238); p < 0.001), increased loss of blood volume (891 ml (IQR 612 to 1203) vs 661 ml (IQR 514 to 980); p = 0.014), and increased haemoglobin change from the preoperative level (2.1 ml (IQR 1.7 to 2.8) vs 1.9 ml (IQR 1.2 to 2.4); p = 0.016) compared with patients who received TXA. For the THA cohort, no statistically significant differences were observed in any haematological outcome measure. One patient in the EACA group required transfusion. No patient in the TXA group required transfusion. There were no statistically significant differences in number or type of postoperative complications or LOS for either THA or TKA patients regardless of whether they received TXA or EACA. Conclusion For hip and knee arthroplasty procedures, EACA is associated with increased perioperative blood loss compared with TXA. However, there is no significant difference in transfusion rate. While further prospective studies are needed to compare the efficacy of each agent, we currently recommend orthopaedic surgeons to select their antifibrinolytic based on cost and regional availability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1093–1099.

Study Design. Retrospective review. Objective. To determine if adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves overall survival (OS) following surgical resection of chordomas. Summary of Background Data. The role of RT for the treatment of chordomas remains incompletely described. Previous studies have not found adjuvant RT to improve OS, but these studies did not group patients based on surgical margin status or radiation dose or modality. We used the National Cancer Database to investigate the role of RT in chordomas following surgical resection. Methods. Patients were stratified based on surgical margin status (positive vs. negative). Utilizing the Kaplan–Meier method, OS was compared between treatment modalities (surgical resection alone, therapeutic RT alone, and surgical resection plus therapeutic RT). OS was subsequently compared between patients treated with palliative dose (<40 Gy), low dose (40–65 Gy), and high dose (>65 Gy) RT. Similarly, OS was compared between advanced RT modalities including proton beam therapy (PBT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). A multivariable model was used to determine adjusted variables predictive of mortality. Results. One thousand four hundred seventy eight chordoma patients were identified; skull base (n = 567), sacral (n = 551), and mobile spine (n = 360). Surgical resection and therapeutic adjuvant RT improved 5-year survival in patients with positive surgical margins (82% vs. 71%, P = 0.03). No clear survival benefit was observed with the addition of adjuvant RT in patients with negative surgical margins. High dose RT was associated with improved OS compared with palliative and low dose RT (P < 0.001). Advanced RT techniques and SRS were associated with improved OS compared with EBRT. In the multivariate analysis high dose advanced RT (>65 Gy) was superior to EBRT. Conclusion. Patients with positive surgical margins benefit from adjuvant RT. Optimal OS is associated with adjuvant RT administered with advanced techniques and cumulative dose more than 65 Gy. Level of Evidence: 4

No abstract