Procedure-Specific Efficacy of Tranexamic Acid in Breast Surgery: A Propensity-Score Adjusted Analysis of 5,202 Procedures

BACKGROUND: Hematoma remains a major complication following breast surgery. While tranexamic acid (TXA) efficacy is established in reduction mammaplasty, its utility across other breast procedures remains unclear. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 5,202 consecutive procedures (2019-2025) performed by multiple surgeons at a single private hospital: primary augmentation (n=3,738), reduction mammaplasty (n=943), explantation with mastopexy (n=358), and explantation alone (n=163). TXA administration was at surgeon discretion. Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting controlled for temporal adoption bias and confounders. Primary outcome was hematoma requiring surgical intervention within 30 days; isolated ecchymosis without palpable collection was not classified as hematoma. RESULTS: TXA adoption increased from 7.0% (2019) to 93.0% (2025). After achieving covariate balance (all SMD <0.2), procedure-specific effects emerged. In reduction mammaplasty, TXA significantly reduced hematoma (2.2% vs 7.2%; adjusted OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.58, p<0.001; NNT=20). Explantation with mastopexy showed similar benefit (1.6% vs 6.0%; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.88, p<0.001). Primary augmentation demonstrated no statistically detectable difference (1.2% vs 1.2%; OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.36-2.42, p=0.905), regardless of implant plane. No thromboembolic events occurred. Surgical site infection showed a nominally significant difference (OR 0.47, p=0.02) but should be considered exploratory given small event counts and absence of a plausible biological mechanism. Seroma and wound dehiscence showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: TXA efficacy is procedure-dependent. It provides significant protection in reduction mammaplasty and mastopexy involving extensive parenchymal dissection, but shows no statistically detectable benefit in primary augmentation. These findings support procedure-specific practice guidance rather than universal prophylaxis.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2026-05-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000013206
Primary Topic
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Procedure-Specific Efficacy of Tranexamic Acid in Breast Surgery: A Propensity-Score Adjusted Analysis of 5,202 Procedures

Miri Mizrahi Reuveni, Or Friedman, David Maiershon, Yuval Paniri et al.
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
article

Procedure-Specific Efficacy of Tranexamic Acid in Breast Surgery: A Propensity-Score Adjusted Analysis of 5,202 Procedures

Miri Mizrahi Reuveni, Or Friedman, David Maiershon, Yuval Paniri, Arnon Afek
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hematoma remains a major complication following breast surgery. While tranexamic acid (TXA) efficacy is established in reduction mammaplasty, its utility across other breast procedures remains unclear. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 5,202 consecutive procedures (2019-2025) performed by multiple surgeons at a single private hospital: primary augmentation (n=3,738), reduction mammaplasty (n=943), explantation with mastopexy (n=358), and explantation alone (n=163). TXA administration was at surgeon discretion. Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting controlled for temporal adoption bias and confounders. Primary outcome was hematoma requiring surgical intervention within 30 days; isolated ecchymosis without palpable collection was not classified as hematoma. RESULTS: TXA adoption increased from 7.0% (2019) to 93.0% (2025). After achieving covariate balance (all SMD <0.2), procedure-specific effects emerged. In reduction mammaplasty, TXA significantly reduced hematoma (2.2% vs 7.2%; adjusted OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.58, p<0.001; NNT=20). Explantation with mastopexy showed similar benefit (1.6% vs 6.0%; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.88, p<0.001). Primary augmentation demonstrated no statistically detectable difference (1.2% vs 1.2%; OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.36-2.42, p=0.905), regardless of implant plane. No thromboembolic events occurred. Surgical site infection showed a nominally significant difference (OR 0.47, p=0.02) but should be considered exploratory given small event counts and absence of a plausible biological mechanism. Seroma and wound dehiscence showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: TXA efficacy is procedure-dependent. It provides significant protection in reduction mammaplasty and mastopexy involving extensive parenchymal dissection, but shows no statistically detectable benefit in primary augmentation. These findings support procedure-specific practice guidance rather than universal prophylaxis.

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Reichman University (IL), Tel Aviv University (IL), Sheba Medical Center (IL), Mayanei Hayeshua Medical Center (IL)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.