==== Front J Orthop Surg Res J Orthop Surg Res Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1749-799X BioMed Central London 2119 10.1186/s13018-020-02119-1 Systematic Review Intra-articular vs. intravenous administration: a meta-analysis of tranexamic acid in primary total knee arthroplasty Li Jin 1 Liu Ruikang 2 Rai Saroj 3 Ze Renhao 1 Tang Xin 1 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2674-3016Hong Pan hongpan2013@foxmail.com 1 1 grid.33199.310000 0004 0368 7223Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022 China 2 grid.33199.310000 0004 0368 7223First School of Clinical Medicine, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China 3 grid.416519.e0000 0004 0468 9079Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, National Trauma Center, National Academy of Medical Sciences, Mahankal, Kathmandu, Nepal 2 12 2020 2 12 2020 2020 15 58120 6 2020 24 11 2020 © The Author(s) 2020Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.Background The optimal dosage and administration approach of tranexamic acid (TXA) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. In light of recently published 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the study aims to incorporate the newly found evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular (IA) vs. intravenous (IV) application of TXA in primary TKA. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs comparing IA with IV TXA for primary TKA. Primary outcomes included total blood loss (TBL) and drain output. Secondary outcomes included hidden blood loss (HBL), hemoglobin (Hb) fall, blood transfusion rate, perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, and tourniquet time. Result In all, 34 RCTs involving 3867 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Significant advantages of IA were shown on TBL (MD = 33.38, 95% CI = 19.24 to 47.51, P < 0.001), drain output (MD = 28.44, 95% CI = 2.61 to 54.27, P = 0.03), and postoperative day (POD) 3+ Hb fall (MD = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.39, P = 0.001) compared with IV. There existed no significant difference on HBL, POD1 and POD2 Hb fall, blood transfusion rate, perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, and tourniquet time between IA and IV. Conclusion Intra-articular administration of TXA is superior to intravenous in primary TKA patients regarding the performance on TBL, drain output, and POD3+ Hb fall, without increased risk of perioperative complications. Therefore, intra-articular administration is the recommended approach in clinical practice for primary TKA. Keywords Tranexamic acidTotal knee arthroplastyIntra-articular administrationIntravenous administrationNature Science Foundation of Hubei Province2018CFB590Li Jin issue-copyright-statement© The Author(s) 2020 ==== Body Background Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common major orthopedic surgery, and the demand is still increasing due to human longevity and large population suffering from knee osteoarthritis (OA) around the world [1, 2]. TKA is an effective choice for end-stage OA [3]. But it is a major operation especially for the geriatric population, and the postoperative reduced hemoglobin (Hb) might require blood transfusion and potentially result in delayed physical rehabilitation, longer hospital stay, and higher medical cost [4]. Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been widely used in many orthopedic surgeries for controlling blood loss [5]. Its safety and efficacy has been validated by many studies [6–8]. However, the optimal administration approach for primary TKA remains to be investigated. Oral administration and intravenous (IV) administration have been validated as an effective approach, but there are potential risks of thromboembolic complications [9, 10]. Besides, intra-articular (IA) administration provides a maximum concentration at the bleeding site with limited systemic influence [11]. Gianakos et al. [12] published the latest meta-analysis on IA vs. IV in 2018, and it demonstrated the superiority of IA over IV administration. However, with the publication of 14 new randomized controlled trial (RCT) results thereafter [13–26], it is imperative to perform a new meta-analysis to corroborate or repudiate the conclusion of Gianakos et al., which is the purpose of our study. Methods Our meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement) [27]. We did not publish a protocol for this study. Literature search Four electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched. Searching was conducted until April 20, 2020, with the following search terms: (“tranexamic acid” OR “TXA”) AND (“total knee arthroplasty” OR “total knee replacement” OR “TKA” ). Literatures were limited to English publication. All studies were full text available. Unpublished investigations were not included. Selection criteria Two independent reviewers performed the search, removed duplicate records, reviewed the titles and abstracts, and identified studies as included, excluded, or uncertain. Full-text articles were reviewed to determine eligibility if identified uncertain. Disagreements were discussed with a third reviewer. We retrieved all RCTs that compared IA with IV administration of TXA in patients receiving primary TKA. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients who underwent primary TKA, (2) comparative studies of IA vs. IV administration of TXA, (3) availability of full text, and (4) English publications. Exclusion criteria were (1) non-cohort studies, (2) retrospective cohort studies, (3) reviews, and (4) unpublished studies. Data extraction The following data were extracted: characteristics of study (design, country, no. of patients, age, sex, body mass index, follow-up, and conclusion), method of administration and operation (IV or IA dosage, type of operation, and surgical approach), and surgical protocols (thromboprophylaxis, DVT screening, prosthetic properties, blood transfusion protocol, tourniquet application, and drainage). Primary outcomes included total blood loss (TBL), which was calculated by the Gross formula or Hb balance method [28, 29], and drain output. Secondary outcomes included hidden blood loss (HBL), Hb fall, blood transfusion rate, and perioperative complications including deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), wound infection, and other vascular events. The duration of tourniquet application and length of hospital stay were also recorded and analyzed. Missing data were obtained from corresponding authors if possible. Quality assessment We assessed the qualities of included studies according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [30]. The strength of evidence for each major outcome was evaluated according to the 8-point modified Jadad scale (Table 1) [31]. A study scoring above 4 was considered qualified. A study scoring above or equal to 7 was considered as high-quality evidence. Table 1 Modified Jadad scale Item assessed Score Was the study described as randomized?  Yes + 1  No 0 Was the method of randomization appropriate?  Yes + 1  No − 1  Not described 0 Was the study described as blinded?  Yes + 1  No 0 Was the method of blinding appropriate?  Yes + 1  No − 1  Not described 0 Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts?  Yes + 1  No 0 Was there a clear description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria?  Yes + 1  No 0 Was the method used to assess adverse effects described?  Yes + 1  No 0 Was the method of statistical analysis described?  Yes + 1  No 0 Assessment of bias The risk of bias in individual studies was divided into five parts: selection bias (random generation sequence and allocation concealment), performance and detection bias (blind), attrition bias (incomplete data), reporting bias (selective reporting), and other biases. Publication bias across studies would be shown by funnel plot if necessary. Statistical analysis We analyzed continuous data by mean difference (MD) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Odds ratio (OR) and its corresponding 95% CI were calculated for dichotomous data. We assessed heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic. I2 value above 50% was considered as high heterogeneity and a random-effects model would be used, while a value below 50% was considered as low heterogeneity and a fixed-effects model would be adopted [32]. Subgroup analyses would be considered when meeting high heterogeneity. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Forrest plots were used to describe the primary results of the meta-analysis. Funnel plots for primary outcomes (TBL and drain output) were generated to evaluate the potential publication bias. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Formal ethical approval was deemed not necessary in our meta-analysis. Result Search results Figure 1 shows detailed steps of the literature search, in which 773 studies were reviewed: 698 studies were excluded after screening titles and abstracts, and the remaining 75 studies were reviewed in full text. After excluding 41 studies according to selection criteria, 34 studies encompassing 3867 patients were included in our study [13–26, 29, 33–51]. Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the literature search Study characteristics and quality assessments As shown in Table 2, the sample size of the included studies ranged from 25 to 320, and the mean age of patients ranged from 57 to 73. Nine of the studies (9/34, 26.5%) favored IA administration, while four of the studies (4/34, 11.8%) preferred IV administration. Table 2 Characteristics of the study Study Design Country No. of patients Age (years) Sex (male/female) BMI (kg/m2) Follow-up Conclusion IV IA IV IA IV IA IV IA Jules-Elysee et al. [14] RCT USA 31 32 65.6 ± 8.4 65.0 ± 6.9 11/20 12/20 31.6 ± 7.1 31.1 ± 5.2 Unclear IV > IA Laoruengthana et al. [13] RCT Thailand 76 75 64.01 ± 7.68 64.81 ± 8.06 62/14 63/12 27.8 ± 5.2 27.6 ± 4.2 Unclear IA > IV Zhang et al. [15, 52] RCT China 50 50 63.12 ± 8.79 59.86 ± 12.01 12/38 10/40 23.9 ± 4.7 25.0 ± 4.3 6 months IA > IV Abdel et al. [20] RCT USA 320 320 66 67 127/193 133/187 31.3 31.6 Unclear IV > IA Ahmed et al. [23] RCT Pakistan 70 70 63.30 ± 9.51 64.39 ± 9.07 28/42 32/38 Unclear Unclear Unclear IA > IV López-Hualda et al. [21] RCT Spain 30 30 73.1 ± 7.3 72.9 ± 7.1 6/24 11/19 Unclear Unclear 1 year IA > IV George et al. [16] RCT India 55 58 64.1 63.8 24/31 14/44 29.4 31.1 6 weeks Neutral Subramanyam et al. [19] RCT India 91 91 62.9 ± 6.8 62.7 ± 7.5 31/60 35/56 28.9 29.9 6 weeks Neutral Wei et al. [18] RCT China 32 32 66.47 ± 8.28 66.43 ± 7.69 14/18 16/16 32.4 ± 3.7 34.2 ± 5.0 3 months Neutral Goyal et al. [36] RCT Australia 85 83 68.8 ± 7.4 66.7 ± 8.9 40/47 38/43 30.3 ± 6.1 31.0 ± 5.3 1 month Neutral Lacko et al. [22] RCT Slovakia 30 30 68.4 ± 7.2 67.5 ± 7.7 12/18 13/17 31.1 ± 4.7 31.9 ± 4.7 3 months IV > IA Maniar et al. [33] RCT India 50 25 65.7 ± 7.6 62.2 ± 7.1 7/43 2/23 30.2 ± 4.5 30.3 ± 3.9 3 months Neutral Prakash et al. [26] RCT India 50 50 70.2 71 NR NR Unclear Unclear 3 months IV > IA Song et al. [35] RCT South Korea 50 50 69.2 ± 6.4 69.8 ± 6.8 6/44 8/42 26.52 ± 3.3 26.96 ± 4.2 3 months Neutral Stowers et al. [24] RCT New Zealand 51 60 71 ± 8.6 70 ± 8.5 27/24 28/32 31.2 ± 5.5 31.2 ± 5.5 6 months Neutral Uğurlu et al. [34] RCT USA 40 42 69.4 ± 7.5 70.6 ± 8.6 11/29 9/33 30.8 ± 5.3 31.1 ± 5.4 10 days Neutral Wang et al. [11, 23] RCT China 50 50 67.42 ± 8.20 67.98 ± 5.97 14/36 14/36 26.7 ± 3.4 25.9 ± 3.8 5 weeks IA > IV Zekcer et al. [25] RCT Brazil 30 30 65.7 65.7 6/24 9/21 Unclear Unclear Unclear Neutral Aggarwal et al. [39] RCT India 35 35 58.77 ± 10.14 55.66 ± 8.71 13/22 12/23 26.33 ± 3.79 27.33 ± 4.63 6 months IA > IV Chen et al. [29, 53] RCT Singapore 50 50 65 ± 8 65 ± 8 15/35 10/40 28 ± 5 28 ± 7 1 month Neutral Drosos et al. [38] RCT Greece 30 30 69.27 ± 7.21 71.10 ± 6.32 6/24 6/24 32.79 ± 5.04 33.38 ± 6.08 1 month Neutral Keyhani et al. [42] RCT Iran 40 40 68.4 ± 10.4 67 ± 11.9 26/14 23/17 32.7 ± 5.5 31.3 ± 5.4 2 weeks Neutral May et al. [37] RCT USA 69 62 65.0 ± 9.6 63.0 ± 10.6 11/58 18/44 33.8 33.8 1 month Neutral Pinsornsak et al. [41] RCT Thailand 30 30 69.97 ± 7.55 67.63 ± 7.96 7/23 5/25 26.52 ± 3.7 27.96 ± 4.99 2 weeks Neutral Tzatzairis et al. [40] RCT Greece 40 40 69.55 ± 6.61 69.10 ± 8.68 9/31 7/33 32.60 ± 4.09 32.60 ± 4.50 6 weeks Neutral Aguilera et al. [43] RCT Spain 50 50 72.49 ± 7.68 72.53 ± 6.60 38/12 32/18 30.20 ± 4.10 30.89 ± 4.37 2 months Neutral Digas et al. [44] RCT Greece 30 30 70 ± 6.5 71 ± 7.0 2/28 7/23 Unclear Unclear 1 year IA > IV Öztaş et al. [45] RCT Turkey 30 30 68.56 67.06 5/25 4/26 Unclear Unclear 3 months IA > IV Gomez-Barrena et al. [46] RCT Spain 39 39 71.8 ± 10.3 70.1 ± 9.1 25/14 26/13 30.2 ± 4.2 30.4 ± 4.1 1 month Neutral Patel et al. [47] RCT USA 42 47 64.9 ± 7.8 64.8 ± 9.7 10/32 13/34 35.8 ± 8.6 32.7 ± 7.0 2 weeks Neutral Sarzaeem et al. [48] RCT Iran 50 100 66.9 ± 7.2 67.8 ± 7.2 7/43 13/87 31.6 ± 2.7 31.5 ± 3.4 Unclear Neutral Soni et al. [49] RCT India 40 40 69.05 ± 4.10 69.45 ± 4.71 19/21 17/23 Unclear Unclear 6 weeks Neutral Seo et al. [50] RCT South Korea 50 50 66.8 ± 6.3 67.5 ± 6.6 6/44 5/45 28.1 ± 3.1 27.8 ± 3.5 2 months IA > IV Maniar et al. [51] RCT India 160 40 67.4 ± 8.1 67.4 ± 7.9 36/124 6/34 29.2 ± 5.4 30.9 ± 5.2 3 months Neutral RCT randomized controlled trial, IV intravenous group, IA intra-articular group, TKA total knee arthroplasty, BMI body mass index Methods of administration and types of operation are presented in Table 3. One study (Maniar et al.) included four IV groups and another study (Maniar et al.) included two IV groups [33, 51]. One study (Sarzaeem et al.) had two IA groups with different dosages [48]. Unilateral TKA was performed in 31 studies (31/34, 91.2%) while bilateral TKA was performed in three studies (31/34, 8.8%). Twenty-four studies (24/34, 70.6%) adopted medial parapatellar, four (4/34, 11.8%) chose the midvastus approach, and two studies (2/34, 5.9%) used subvastus parapatellar, while the approach was unclear in the rest six studies (6/34, 17.6%). Table 3 Methods of administration and operation Study IV dosage IA dosage Type of operation Surgical approach Jules-Elysee et al. [14] 1 g TXA × two doses; POPO 3 g TXA × one dose; before tourniquet release Primary unilateral TKA Unclear Laoruengthana et al. [13] 10 mg/kg TXA × one dose; IO 15 mg/kg TXA × one dose; before closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Zhang et al. [15, 52] 20 mg/kg TXA × one dose; PEO 3 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Abdel et al. [20] 1 g TXA × one dose; PEO 3 g TXA × one dose; after cemented Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar or midvastus approach Ahmed et al. [17] 1.5 g TXA × one dose; PTO 1.5 g TXA × one dose; while closure Primary simultaneous bilateral TKA Unclear López-Hualda et al. [21] 1 g TXA × one dose; PEO 1 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar George et al. [16] 10 mg/kg TXA × two doses; POPO 1.5 g TXA × one dose; before closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Subramanyam et al. [19] 10 mg/kg TXA × one dose; PEO 1.5 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Wei et al. [18] 10 mg/kg TXA × one dose; PEO 1 g TXA × one dose; before tourniquet release Primary unilateral TKA Unclear Goyal et al. [36] 1 g TXA × three doses; IO/PTO/PTO 3 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Lacko et al. [22] 10 mg/kg TXA × two doses; POPO 3 g TXA × one dose; after cemented Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Maniar et al. [33] 10 mg/kg TXA × two doses (bilateral); IO 3 g TXA × two doses(bilateral); after cemented Primary simultaneous bilateral TKA Midvastus approach 10 mg/kg TXA × three doses; POIOPO Prakash et al. [26] 10 mg/kg TXA × three doses; POIOPO 3 g TXA × one dose; before closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Song et al. [35] 10 mg/kg TXA × three doses; POIOPO 1.5 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary bilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Stowers et al. [24] 1 g TXA × one dose; IO 1 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Uğurlu et al. [34] 20 mg/kg TXA × one dose; PEO 3 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Wang et al. [11, 23] 1 g TXA × one dose; IO 1 g TXA × one dose; before closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Zekcer et al. [25] 20 mg/kg TXA × one dose; unclear 1.5 g TXA × one dose; before tourniquet release Primary unilateral TKA Unclear Aggarwal et al. [39] 15 mg/kg TXA × two dose; IOPO 15 mg/kg TXA × one dose; before closure Primary simultaneous bilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Chen et al. [29, 53] 1.5 g TXA × one dose; IO 1.5 g TXA × one dose; after cemented Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Drosos et al. [38] 1 g TXA × one dose; PEO 1 g TXA × one dose; before closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Keyhani et al. [42] 0.5 g TXA × one dose; IO 1.5 g TXA × two doses; before/after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar May et al. [37] 1 g TXA × two doses; POPO 2 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Unclear Pinsornsak et al. [37] 0.75 mg TXA × one dose; IO 0.75 mg × one dose; before tourniquet release Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Tzatzairis et al. [40] 1 g TXA × one dose; PEO 1 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Aguilera et al. [43] 1 g TXA × two doses; POIO 1 g TXA × one dose; after cemented Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Digas et al. [44] 15 mg/kg TXA × one dose; IO 2 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Öztaş et al. [45] 15 mg/kg TXA × two doses; POPO 10 mg/kg TXA × one dose; 1-h infusion 2 g TXA × one dose; before tourniquet release Primary unilateral TKA Unclear Gomez-Barrena et al. [46] 15 mg/kg TXA × two doses; IOPO 3 g TXA × one dose; before + after closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Patel et al. [47] 10 mg/kg TXA × one dose; IO 2 g TXA × one dose; before tourniquet release Primary unilateral TKA Medial or subvastus parapatellar Sarzaeem et al. [48] 1.5 g TXA × one dose; PTO 1.5 g TXA × one dose; after closure Primary unilateral TKA Subvastus approach 3 g TXA × one dose; before closure Soni et al. [49] 10 mg/kg TXA × three doses; POIOPO 3 g TXA × one dose; before tourniquet release Primary unilateral TKA Midvastus approach Seo et al. [50] 1.5 g TXA × one dose; PTO 1.5 g TXA × one dose; while closure Primary unilateral TKA Medial parapatellar Maniar et al. [51] 10 mg/kg TXA × one dose; IO 3 g TXA × one dose; before tourniquet release Primary unilateral TKA Midvastus approach 10 mg/kg TXA × two doses; IOPO 10 mg/kg TXA × two doses; POIO 10 mg/kg TXA × three doses; POIOPO IO intraoperative dose, IOPO intra- and postoperative doses, PEO preoperative dose, POIO pre- and intraoperative doses, POIOPO all three doses, POPO pre- and postoperative doses, PTO postoperative dose, TXA tranexamic acid Table 4 summarizes the detailed surgical protocols. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the preferred prophylactic choice for thrombosis (21/34, 61.8%), following by pumping exercise and compression stocking (7/34, 20.6%), and aspirin (6/34, 17.6%). Both Doppler ultrasound and clinical examination were the most commonly used screening method for DVT (16/34, 47.1%), and chest CT was used in five studies (5/34, 14.7%), while nine (9/34, 26.5%) remained unclear. Cemented prosthesis was adopted in 27 studies (27/34, 79.4%), tourniquet was used in 31 studies (31/34, 91.2%), and 19 of the studies (31/34, 55.9%) clamped the drain tube after the operation. Table 4 Surgical protocols Study Thromboprophylaxis DVT screening method Prosthetic properties Blood transfusion protocol Tourniquet Drainage Jules-Elysee et al. [14] Unclear Unclear Cemented Unclear Yes Clamped for 4 h Laoruengthana et al. [13] LMWH/warfarin Unclear Cemented Hb < 9.0 g/L Yes Clamped for 3 h Zhang et al. [15, 52] Rivaroxaban Doppler ultrasound Cemented Unclear Yes Unclear Abdel et al. [20] Aspirin/warfarin Unclear Cemented Hb < 7.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Unclear Ahmed et al. [17] Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear López-Hualda et al. [21] Unclear Unclear Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Unclear George et al. [16] LMWH/aspirin Doppler ultrasound Cemented Hb < 7.0 g/dL Yes Unclear Subramanyam et al. [19] Aspirin Calf pump Clinical examination Doppler ultrasound Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes No drain Wei et al. [18] LMWH Unclear Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Unclear Goyal et al. [36] LMWH/aspirin Compression stocking Doppler ultrasound Hybrid Hb < 7.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms No Closed Lacko et al. [22] Unclear Doppler ultrasound Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 9.0 + symptoms Yes Unclear Maniar et al. [33] LMWH Ankle pumping exercise Compression stocking Clinical examination Doppler ultrasound Cemented Hn < 8.5 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 2 h Prakash et al. [26] LMWH Calf pump Doppler ultrasound Chest CT Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Yes Clamped for 30 min Song et al. [35] LMWH in high-risk patient Doppler ultrasound Chest CT Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Yes Clamped for 10 min Stowers et al. [24] Aspirin Clinical examination Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes No drain Uğurlu et al. [34] LMWH Compression stocking Clinical examination Unclear Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb > 8.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 1 h Wang et al. [11, 23] LMWH/rivaroxaban Elastic bandage Doppler ultrasound Cemented Hb < 6.0 g/dL Hb > 6.0 + symptoms Yes Clamped for 2 h Zekcer et al. [25] LMWH Compression stocking Unclear Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Yes Unclear Aggarwal et al. [39] Aspirin Clinical examination Cemented Hb > 8.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 1 h Chen et al. [29, 53] LMWH Calf pumps Clinical examination Doppler ultrasound Chest CT Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Unclear Drosos et al. [38] LMWH Compression stocking Clinical examination Doppler ultrasound Hybrid Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes No clamp Keyhani et al. [42] LMWH Doppler ultrasound Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Yes Clamped for 2 h May et al. [37] LMWH Sequential compression Clinical examination Unclear Hb < 7.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes No drain Pinsornsak et al. [37] Ankle pumping exercise Early ambulation Clinical examination Cemented Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 3 h Tzatzairis et al. [40] LMWH Compression stocking Doppler ultrasound Clinical examination Chest CT Cemented Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms No Clamped for 1 h Aguilera et al. [43] LMWH Clinical examination Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 9.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 1 h Digas et al. [44] Tinzaparin Clinical examination Cemented Hb < 8.5 g/dL Hb < 9.5 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 3 h Öztaş et al. [45] LMWH Clinical examination Unclear Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 30 min Gomez-Barrena et al. [46] LMWH Clinical examination Doppler ultrasound Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 2 h Patel et al. [47] LMWH Doppler ultrasound Chest CT Unclear Hb < 8.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Yes Sarzaeem et al. [48] Unclear Unclear Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 1 h Soni et al. [49] LMWH Ankle pumping exercise Clinical examination Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Yes Clamped for 1 h Seo et al. [50] Unclear Unclear Cemented Hb < 8.0 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes No drain Maniar et al. [51] LMWH Ankle pumping exercise Compression stocking Clinical examination Doppler ultrasound Cemented Hb < 8.5 g/dL Hb < 10.0 g/dL + symptoms Yes Clamped for 2 h Hb hemoglobin, LMWH low-molecular-weight heparin Quality assessment and assessment of bias are presented in Table 5. In all, 25 studies (25/34, 73.5%) are high-quality and nine (9/34, 26.5%) are moderate-quality evidences. Table 5 Methodological quality of included studies Study Quality score Random generation sequence Allocation concealment Blind Incomplete outcome data Selective reporting Other biases Jules-Elysee et al. [14] 7 Computer-generated randomization schedule Unclear Yes No No No Laoruengthana et al. [13] 8 Computer-generated numbers Concealed envelope Yes No No No Zhang et al. [15, 52] 8 Randomized numbers table Labeled with numbering code Yes No No No Abdel et al. [20] 6 Randomized but unknown method Unclear Yes No No No Ahmed et al. [17] 6 The lottery method Unclear No No No No López-Hualda et al [21] 5 Randomized but unknown method Unclear No No No No George et al. [16] 8 Computer-generated numbers Concealed envelope Yes No No No Subramanyam et al. [19] 8 Computer-generated numbers Concealed envelope Yes No No No Wei et al. [18] 8 Randomized numbers table Concealed envelope Yes No No No Goyal et al. [36] 8 Computer-generated numbers Concealed envelope Yes No No No Lacko et al. [22] 6 Computer-generated numbers Unclear No No No No Maniar et al. [33] 8 Randomly drawing sealed envelope from container Concealed envelope Yes No No No Prakash et al. [26] 7 Randomized but unknown method Concealed envelope Yes No No No Song et al. [35] 8 Computer-generated numbers Concealed envelope Yes No No No Stowers et al. [24] 8 Block randomization Concealed envelope Yes No No No Uğurlu et al. [34] 5 Randomized but unknown method Unclear No No No No Wang et al. [11, 23] 8 Randomly drawing sealed envelope from container Concealed envelope Yes No No No Zekcer et al. [25] 8 Randomly drawing sealed envelope from container Concealed envelope Yes No No No Aggarwal et al. [39] 8 Computer-generated numbers Concealed envelope Yes No No No Chen et al. [29, 53] 8 Randomized numbers table Concealed envelope Yes No No No Drosos et al. [38] 8 Stratified randomization by minimization Concealed envelope Yes No No No Keyhani et al. [42] 5 Randomized but unknown method Unclear No No No No May et al. [37] 7 Randomized numbers table Unclear Yes No No No Pinsornsak et al. [37] 7 Randomized but unknown method Concealed envelope Yes No No No Tzatzairis et al. [40] 6 Stratified randomization by minimization Unclear No No No No Aguilera et al. [43] 7 Randomized numbers table Unclear Yes No No No Digas et al. [44] 7 Randomized but unknown method Concealed envelope Yes No No No Öztaş et al. [45] 5 Randomized but unknown method Unclear No No No No Gomez-Barrena et al. [46] 7 Randomized but unknown method Concealed envelope Yes No No No Patel et al. [47] 7 Excel’s randomization Unclear Yes No No No Sarzaeem et al. [48] 7 Randomized numbers table Unclear Yes No No No Soni et al. [49] 6 Computer-generated numbers Unclear No No No No Seo et al. [50] 7 Randomized numbers table Unclear Yes No No No Maniar et al. [51] 8 Randomly drawing sealed envelope from container Concealed envelope Yes No No No Meta-analysis of outcomes All the results are listed in Table 6, including primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, three subgroup analyses, and three low heterogeneity analyses. Table 6 Results of meta-analysis and subgroup analyses Variables Studies (n) Patients (n) P value Incidence: OR/MDs (95% CI) Heterogeneity: P value (I2) Model Total blood loss (TBL) 18 1656 < 0.001* 63.99 (27.81 to 100.16) < 0.001* (81%) Random 13 1197 < 0.001* 33.38 (19.24 to 47.51) 0.34 (11%) Fixed Drain output 17 1494 0.03* 28.44 (2.61 to 54.27) < 0.001* (93%) Random  Clamp < 2 h 7 607 0.03* 51.47 (6.02 to 96.92) < 0.001* (92%) Random  Clamp ≥ 2 h 10 887 0.51 12.40 (− 24.85 to 49.65) < 0.001* (89%) Random Hidden blood loss (HBL) 6 640 0.83 7.57 (− 60.34 to 75.47) 0.006 (69%) Random Hemoglobin (Hb) fall 19 1749 0.79 − 0.02 (− 0.20 to 0.16) < 0.001* (87%) Random  POD1 10 1052 0.07 − 0.34 (− 0.70 to 0.02) < 0.001* (91%) Random 8 839 0.86 − 0.01 (− 0.11 to 0.13) 0.14 (36%) Fixed  POD2 8 701 0.37 0.17 (− 0.20 to 0.53) <0.001* (82%) Random 6 531 0.36 − 0.08 (− 0.25 to 0.09) 0.11 (44%) Fixed  POD3+ 6 637 0.001* 0.24 (0.09 to 0.39) 0.18 (34%) Fixed Transfusion rate 25 2950 0.62 0.93 (0.69 to 1.24) 0.54 (0%) Fixed Complications 20 2594 0.98 1.00 (0.72 to 1.39) 0.47 (0%) Fixed  DVT 10 1641 0.83 0.92 (0.44 to 1.92) 0.84 (0%) Fixed  PE 3 342 0.98 1.02 (0.25 to 4.20) 0.81 (0%) Fixed  Wound complications 14 1465 0.83 0.95 (0.58 to 1.55) 0.39 (6%) Fixed  Other adverse events 13 1899 0.69 1.10 (0.68 to 1.80) 0.42 (2%) Fixed Length of stay 7 748 0.33 0.07 (− 0.07 to 0.22) 0.35 (11%) Fixed Tourniquet time 9 816 0.19 − 1.22 (− 3.06 to 0.62) 0.74 (0%) Fixed POD postoperative day, DVT deep vein thrombosis *≤ 0.05 Total blood loss Eighteen studies provided valid data of TBL on 1656 patients. Given the presence of significant heterogeneity among studies (P < 0.001, I2 = 81%), we used a random-effects model for analysis. IA administration showed a significant advantage compared to IV administration (MD = 63.99, 95% CI = 27.81 to 100.16, P < 0.001). Concerning about the high heterogeneity, we performed a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias and got another lower heterogeneity result (Fig. 2) by analyzing 13 studies (P = 0.34, I2 = 11%) with a fixed-effects model, which still revealed a significant superiority of IA administration (MD = 33.38, 95% CI = 19.24 to 47.51, P < 0.001). Publication bias is shown by a funnel plot (Fig. 3). Fig. 2 Forest plot showing low heterogeneity effect of IV vs IA TXA on total blood loss Fig. 3 Funnel plot of TBL shows low publication bias Drain output Seventeen studies involving 1494 patients provided valid data of drain output. Due to significant heterogeneity among studies (P < 0.001, I2 = 93%), we used a random-effects model for analysis. IA administration showed a significant advantage (Fig. 4) compared to IV administration (MD = 28.44, 95% CI = 2.61 to 54.27, P = 0.03). Fig. 4 Forest plot showing the effect of IV vs IA TXA on drain output Drainage volume was analyzed in subgroup based on the duration of tube clamping. For studies in which the drainage tube was clamped postoperatively less than two hours, a significant superiority was shown in the IA group compared to the IV group (MD = 51.47, 95% CI = 6.02 to 96.92, P = 0.03). Considering the high heterogeneity (P < 0.001, I2 = 92%), a random-effects was used for analysis. There was no significant difference (MD = 12.40, 95% CI = − 24.85 to 49.65, P = 0.51) for studies in which the drainage tube was clamped postoperatively over 2 h with high heterogeneity (P < 0.001, I2 = 89%). Hidden blood loss Only six studies including 640 patients reported HBL. Since there existed significant heterogeneity among studies (P = 0.006, I2 = 69%), we used a random-effects model for analysis. There existed no significant difference between the IV and IA groups (MD = 7.57, 95% CI = − 60.34 to 75.47, P = 0.83) on HBL. Hemoglobin fall In all, 19 studies involving 1749 patients reported the data of postoperative Hb fall. Because different studies reported Hb of postoperative day (POD) 1 to 5 with high heterogeneity (P < 0.001, I2 = 87%), we conducted subgroup analyses based on POD1, POD2, or POD3+. Ten studies involving 1052 patients reported the POD1 Hb fall. The random-effects model (P < 0.001, I2 = 91%) was used for analysis, and there was no significant difference between the IV and IA groups (MD = − 0.34, 95% CI = − 0.70 to 0.02, P = 0.07). Regarding the high heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis was performed and two studies were excluded [14, 48], then we got a lower heterogeneity result (P = 0.14, I2 = 36%) by analyzing the rest of 8 studies including 839 patients with a fixed-effects model. No significant difference was shown between the IV and IA groups (MD = − 0.01, 95% CI = − 0.11 to 0.13, P = 0.86). Eight studies involving 701 patients reported the POD2 Hb fall. Considering the significant heterogeneity among studies (P < 0.001, I2 = 82%), we used a random-effects model for analysis. There existed no significant difference between the IV and IA groups (MD = 0.17, 95% CI = − 0.20 to 0.53, P = 0.37). We also performed a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias and excluded two studies [23, 39] and got a lower heterogeneity (P = 0.11, I2 = 44%) result by analyzing the rest of six studies involving 531 patients with a fixed-effects model. No significant difference was shown between the IV and IA groups (MD = − 0.08, 95% CI = − 0.25 to 0.09, P = 0.36). Six studies involving 637 patients reported the POD3+ Hb fall. Because of low heterogeneity among studies (P = 0.18, I2 = 34%), a fixed-effects model was used for analysis. The IA group showed a significant advantage compared to the IV group (MD = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.39, P = 0.001). Blood transfusion rate Twenty-eight studies involving 3270 patients had data on blood transfusion. Transfusions were reported as 109/1664 (6.6%) in the IV group and 99/1606 (6.2%) in the IA group. Only 25 studies with 2950 patients were included in our meta-analysis, while the other three studies reported no transfusion event. The risk of a blood transfusion was similar between the two groups (OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.24, P = 0.62), and the data showed low heterogeneity (P = 0.54, I2 = 0%). Complications In our study, certain complications were our concern, including DVT, PE, wound complications, and other adverse events. In all, 33 studies involving 3807 patients mentioned data of complications. The incidence of complications was mentioned as 77/1946 (4.0%) in the IV group and 77/1861 (4.1%) in the IA group. In these 33 studies, 13 of them reported no complication, so only 20 studies with 2594 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The risk was the same between the two groups (OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.39, P = 0.98) with low heterogeneity (P = 0.47, I2 = 0%). In subgroup analysis, complications were classified into four types: DVT, PE, wound complications, and other adverse events. All subgroups showed insignificant differences between the IV and IA groups. There were 23 DVT events reported in ten studies among all 33 studies. Pooled results showed a similar risk (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.44 to 1.92, P = 0.83) with low heterogeneity (P = 0.84, I2 = 0%). Both the IV and IA groups had four PE events reported in three studies [15, 24, 37]. The risk of PE was similar between the IV group and IA group (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.25 to 4.20, P = 0.98) with low heterogeneity (P = 0.81, I2 = 0%). Wound complications included infection, necrosis, delay healing, and dehiscence. There were 58 wound complications reported in 14 studies. A fixed-effects model was used due to low heterogeneity (P = 0.39, I2 = 6%), and a similar risk of wound complications was shown in two groups (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.55, P = 0.83 ). Other adverse events were reported in 65 patients of 13 studies. Zhang et al. [15] reported 14 patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism, and Wang et al. [23] reported one patient with intramuscular vein thrombosis. Besides, Abdel et al. [20] reported one patient with a thrombotic cerebrovascular accident. Functional disorders, such as stiffness, vomiting, nausea, dizziness, constipation, and paresthesia, were also reported in several studies [36, 43, 46]. A similar risk was shown (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.80, P = 0.69) with low heterogeneity (P = 0.42, I2 = 2%) between IA and IV. Length of hospital stay Seven studies involving 748 patients reported data on length of hospital stay. Because of low heterogeneity (P = 0.35, I2 = 11%), we used a fixed-effects model for analysis. There was no significant difference in this comparison (MD = 0.07, 95% CI = − 0.07 to 0.22, P = 0.33). Duration of tourniquet application Nine studies including 815 patients reported data of tourniquet time. A fixed-effects model was used for analysis due to the low heterogeneity (P = 0.74, I2 = 0%). It did not show a statistical difference between the two groups (MD = − 1.22, 95% CI = − 3.06 to 0.62, P = 0.19). Discussion The most important finding in our study is that the difference of TBL and drain output between IV and IA administration is supported by newly added RCTs. Based on available evidences, the IA group shows significant superiority over the IV group regarding TBL, drain output, and POD3+ Hb fall. Besides, this study suggests that there exists no statistical difference on HBL, POD1 and POD2 Hb fall, incidence of blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and time of tourniquet application between the two groups. As an antifibrinolytic agent, TXA is a synthetic derivative of the amino acid lysine which competitively blocks the lysine-binding sites in the plasmin and plasminogen activator molecules, thereby preventing dissolution of the fibrin clot [54]. A previous study [6], which included 23,236 patients undergoing primary TKA, proved that TXA application was associated with decreased blood loss and transfusion risk without noticeably increased risk of complications. Besides, it could also reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism [6]. Several previous studies have compared IV and IA administration in TKA: Xie et al. [55] included 18 RCTs and found no significant difference between IV and IA. Gianakos et al. [12] included 18 RCTs and 5 non-RCTs, and they found significant differences regarding TBL and drain output between IV and IA. However, it was a study of high heterogeneity. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis with more newly published RCTs. Moreover, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to reach a more convincing conclusion. In our study, IA administration shows significant superiority on the TBL to IV group (MD = 33.38, P < 0.001). A previous study indicated easier administration of topical TXA with a maximum concentration at the bleeding site and minimal systemic absorption [53], and therefore, topical application may deliver better blood loss control theoretically. The IA group also shows significant superiority on drain output (MD = 28.44, P = 0.03). The difference is more significant when the drainage tube is clamped postoperatively less than 2 h (MD = 51.47, P = 0.03). However, when the drainage tube is clamped over 2 h after surgery, there exists no statistical difference between them (P = 0.51). It is possibly due to a higher concentration of TXA and longer contact time in the IA approach. There exists a significant difference on POD3+ Hb fall (MD = 0.24, P = 0.001), while POD1 (P = 0.86) and POD2 Hb fall (P = 0.36) show no noticeable difference between the two groups. POD3+ Hb fall is usually caused by HBL [55]. However, due to the limited data, there exists no difference on HBL (P = 0.83). Besides, IV administration of TXA has a maximal systemic absorption which may result in a shorter efficacy time in theory [56]. Therefore, it is a reasonable explanation of similar effects on POD1 and POD2, and a better result in the IA group on POD3+. Fillingham et al. [5] published a clinical guideline of TXA application in joint replacement, but no optimal approach was recommended. In contrast, in our study, IA was found to be of superior value in light of the recently published RCT results. Although we have not compared IA with oral or combined administration, future clinical trials might validate our findings and possibly influence the revision of the clinical guideline of TXA. Besides, Fillingham et al. [5] also admitted dosage amount and multiple doses of TXA did not significantly affect the blood loss. However, several recent studies had different conclusions. Tzatzairis et al. [57] made a comparison between one to three doses of 15 mg/kg TXA intravenously and concluded that the three-dose group displayed better outcome. Lei et al. [58] reach the same conclusion by comparing 20 mg/kg and 60 mg/kg TXA intravenously. Moreover, Zhang et al. [52] even reported a better outcome of six-dose IV TXA. Besides, Tammachote et al. [59] compared high dosage (3 g) with low dosage (0.5 g) for IA TXA and also found a better outcome of high dosage. All the results of recent RCTs favor high-dose administration of TXA. Although TXA dosage and timing were popular topics, there is no meta-analysis about them by now. In our meta-analysis, there existed no standard dosage protocol for included studies (Table 3): In the IV group, 52.9% of the studies (18 studies) used a weight-based dosage (10 to 20 mg/kg) and the rest 47.1% of the studies (16 studies) chose a standard dosage (0.5 to 1.5 g). In the IA group, only 5.9% of the studies (2 studies) used a weight-based dosage (15 mg/kg) and the rest 94.1% of the studies (32 studies) chose a standard dosage (0.75 to 3 g). However, restricted by limited data, we did not perform a subgroup analysis for TXA dose and timing. Advantages of our study include substantial high-quality RCTs (Table 5) and adequate analysis. 73.5% of the studies (25 studies) have detailed random generation sequence, and 55.9% of the studies (19 studies) have adequate allocation concealment. Besides, 73.5% of the studies (25 studies) are recent studies (published after 2015). Our analyzing methods are subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis when the previous analysis has high heterogeneity. There are several limitations in our studies. Firstly, the inherent bias in different studies because of the inconsistent threshold for blood transfusion cannot be overlooked. Besides, the DVT rate might be influenced by the inclusion criteria, and the RCT of TXA in a DVT high-risk population might be required to validate our findings. Furthermore, repeated dose seemed a better choice than a single dose in both IV and IA administration [52, 57–59], and therefore, different methods of administration may influence the result. Lastly, data for HBL, length of hospital stay, and duration of tourniquet application are limited for analysis, and cost-effectiveness remains to be investigated. Conclusion IA administration of TXA is superior to IV TXA in patients receiving primary TKA regarding the performance on TBL, drain output, and POD3+ Hb fall, without noticeably increased risk of complications. Therefore, IA administration should be the preferred approach in clinical practice. Abbreviations IAIntra-articular IVIntravenous TXATranexamic acid TKATotal knee arthroplasty HbHemoglobin OAOsteoarthritis TBLTotal blood loss HBLHidden blood loss PODPostoperative day DVTDeep vein thrombosis PEPulmonary embolism LMWHLow-molecular-weight heparin RCTRandomized controlled trial BMIBody mass index OROdds ratio MDMean difference CIConfidence interval Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Jin Li and Ruikang Liu contributed equally to this work and are the co-first authors. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Authors’ contributions PH* is in charge of the main idea and is the guarantor of the integrity of the entire study; JL and RKL contributed equally to this manuscript. JL and RKL are in charge of the study concepts, design, manuscript preparation, and editing; PH and SR are in charge of the language polishing and the grammar revision; RHZ and XT are in charge of the collection of the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding This study is supported by the Nature Science Foundation of Hubei Province [2018CFB590]. The foundation had no roles in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Availability of data and materials We state that the data will not be shared because all the raw data are present in the figures included in the article. Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. ==== Refs References 1. Kurtz SM Ong KL Lau E International survey of primary and revision total knee replacement Int Orthop. 2011 35 12 1783 1789 10.1007/s00264-011-1235-5 21404023 2. Kurtz S Ong K Lau E Mowat F Halpern M Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030 J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 89 4 780 785 10.2106/00004623-200704000-00012 17403800 3. Hussain SM Neilly DW Baliga S Patil S Meek R Knee osteoarthritis: a review of management options Scott Med J. 2016 61 1 7 16 10.1177/0036933015619588 27330013 4. Spahn DR Anemia and patient blood management in hip and knee surgery: a systematic review of the literature Anesthesiology. 2010 113 482 495 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181e08e97 20613475 5. Fillingham YA Ramkumar DB Jevsevar DS Tranexamic acid use in total joint arthroplasty: the clinical practice guidelines endorsed by the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, and Knee Society J Arthroplasty. 2018 33 10 3065 3069 10.1016/j.arth.2018.08.002 30146350 6. Hallstrom B Singal B Cowen ME Roberts KC Hughes RE The Michigan experience with safety and effectiveness of tranexamic acid use in hip and knee arthroplasty J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 98 19 1646 1655 10.2106/JBJS.15.01010 27707851 7. Fillingham YA Ramkumar DB Jevsevar DS The safety of tranexamic acid in total joint arthroplasty: a direct meta-analysis J Arthroplasty. 2018 33 10 3070 3082 10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.031 29699826 8. Fillingham YA Ramkumar DB Jevsevar DS The efficacy of tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: a network meta-analysis J Arthroplasty. 2018 33 10 3090 3098 10.1016/j.arth.2018.04.043 29805106 9. Guo P He Z Wang Y Efficacy and safety of oral tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 97 18 587 10.1097/MD.0000000000010587 10. Liu W Yang C Huang X Liu R Tranexamic acid reduces occult blood loss, blood transfusion, and improves recovery of knee function after total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study J Knee Surg. 2018 31 3 239 246 10.1055/s-0037-1602248 28460409 11. Wang S Gao X An Y Topical versus intravenous tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Int Orthop. 2017 41 4 739 748 10.1007/s00264-016-3296-y 27837327 12. Gianakos AL Hurley ET Haring RS Yoon RS Liporace FA Reduction of blood loss by tranexamic acid following total hip and knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis JBJS Rev. 2018 6 5 1 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00103 13. Laoruengthana A Rattanaprichavej P Rasamimongkol S Galassi M Weerakul S Pongpirul K Intra-articular tranexamic acid mitigates blood loss and morphine use after total knee arthroplasty. A randomized controlled trial J Arthroplasty. 2019 34 5 877 881 10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.030 30755381 14. Jules-Elysee KM Tseng A Sculco TP Comparison of topical and intravenous tranexamic acid for total knee replacement: a randomized double-blinded controlled study of effects on tranexamic acid levels and thrombogenic and inflammatory marker levels J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 101 23 2120 2128 10.2106/JBJS.19.00258 31800425 15. Zhang YM Yang B Sun XD Zhang Z Combined intravenous and intra-articular tranexamic acid administration in total knee arthroplasty for preventing blood loss and hyperfibrinolysis: a randomized controlled trial Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 98 7 e14458 10.1097/MD.0000000000014458 30762760 16. George J Eachempati KK Subramanyam KN Gurava Reddy AV The comparative efficacy and safety of topical and intravenous tranexamic acid for reducing perioperative blood loss in total knee arthroplasty - a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial Knee. 2018 25 1 185 191 10.1016/j.knee.2017.11.006 29343449 17. Ahmed S Ahmed A Ahmad S Atiq-uz-Zaman Javed S Aziz A Blood loss after intraarticular and intravenous tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty J Pak Med Assoc. 2018 68 10 1434 1437 30317337 18. Wei W Dang S Duan D Wei L Comparison of intravenous and topical tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 19 1 191 195 10.1186/s12891-018-2122-7 29898707 19. Subramanyam KN Khanchandani P Tulajaprasad PV Jaipuria J Mundargi AV Efficacy and safety of intra-articular versus intravenous tranexamic acid in reducing perioperative blood loss in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized double-blind equivalence trial Bone Joint J. 2018 100B 2 152 160 10.1302/0301-620X.100B2.BJJ-2017-0907.R1 20. Abdel MP Chalmers BP Taunton MJ Intravenous versus topical tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: both effective in a randomized clinical trial of 640 patients J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 100 12 1023 1029 10.2106/JBJS.17.00908 29916929 21. López-Hualda Á Dauder-Gallego C Ferreño-Márquez D Martínez-Martín J Efficacy and safety of topical tranexamic acid in knee arthroplasty Med Clin (Barc). 2018 151 11 431 434 10.1016/j.medcli.2018.01.017 29496242 22. Lacko M Cellar R Schreierova D Vasko G Comparison of intravenous and intra-articular tranexamic acid in reducing blood loss in primary total knee replacement Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2017 28 2 64 71 10.5606/ehc.2017.54914 28760121 23. Wang J Wang Q Zhang X Wang Q Intra-articular application is more effective than intravenous application of tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial J Arthroplasty. 2017 32 11 3385 3389 10.1016/j.arth.2017.06.024 28697863 24. Stowers MDJ Aoina J Vane A Poutawera V Hill AG Munro JT Tranexamic acid in knee surgery study-a multicentered, randomized, controlled trial J Arthroplasty. 2017 32 11 3379 3384 10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.058 28662956 25. Zekcer A Priori RD Tieppo C Silva RSD Severino NR Comparative study of topical vs. intravenous tranexamic acid regarding blood loss in total knee arthroplasty Rev Bras Ortop. 2017 52 5 589 595 10.1016/j.rbo.2016.09.012 29062824 26. Prakash J Seon JK Park YJ Jin C Song EK A randomized control trial to evaluate the effectiveness of intravenous, intra-articular and topical wash regimes of tranexamic acid in primary total knee arthroplasty J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017 25 1 1 7 27. Moher D Shamseer L Clarke M Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement Syst Rev. 2015 4 1 1 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 25554246 28. Gross JB Estimating allowable blood loss: corrected for dilution Anesthesiology. 1983 58 277 280 10.1097/00000542-198303000-00016 6829965 29. Chen JY Chin PL Moo IH Intravenous versus intra-articular tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: a double-blinded randomised controlled noninferiority trial Knee. 2016 23 1 152 156 10.1016/j.knee.2015.09.004 26746044 30. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 16 Mar 2020. 31. Oremus M Wolfson C Perrault A Demers L Momoli F Moride Y Interrater reliability of the modified Jadad quality scale for systematic reviews of Alzheimer’s disease drug trials Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2001 12 3 232 236 10.1159/000051263 11244218 32. Higgins JP Thompson SG Deeks JJ Altman DG Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BMJ. 2003 327 7414 557 560 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 12958120 33. Maniar RN Singhi T Patil A Kumar G Maniar P Singh J Optimizing effectivity of tranexamic acid in bilateral knee arthroplasty - a prospective randomized controlled study Knee. 2017 24 1 100 106 10.1016/j.knee.2016.10.014 27889320 34. Uğurlu M Aksekili MA Çağlar C Yüksel K Şahin E Akyol M Effect of topical and intravenously applied tranexamic acid compared to control group on bleeding in primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty J Knee Surg. 2017 30 2 152 157 10.1055/s-0036-1583270 27135960 35. Song EK Seon JK Prakash J Seol YJ Park YJ Jin C Combined administration of IV and topical tranexamic acid is not superior to either individually in primary navigated TKA J Arthroplasty. 2017 32 1 37 42 10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.052 27633946 36. Goyal N Chen DB Harris IA Rowden NJ Kirsh G MacDessi SJ Intravenous vs intra-articular tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind trial J Arthroplasty. 2017 32 1 28 32 10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.004 27567057 37. May JH Rieser GR Williams CG Markert RJ Bauman RD Lawless MW The assessment of blood loss during total knee arthroplasty when comparing intravenous vs intracapsular administration of tranexamic acid J Arthroplasty. 2016 31 11 2452 2457 10.1016/j.arth.2016.04.018 27259391 38. Drosos GI Ververidis A Valkanis C A randomized comparative study of topical versus intravenous tranexamic acid administration in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) total knee replacement J Orthop. 2016 13 3 127 131 10.1016/j.jor.2016.03.007 27222617 39. Aggarwal AK Singh N Sudesh P Topical vs intravenous tranexamic acid in reducing blood loss after bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study J Arthroplasty. 2016 31 7 1442 1448 10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.033 26947543 40. Tzatzairis TK Drosos GI Kotsios SE Ververidis AN Vogiatzaki TD Kazakos KI Intravenous vs topical tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty without tourniquet application: a randomized controlled study J Arthroplasty. 2016 31 11 2465 2470 10.1016/j.arth.2016.04.036 27267228 41. Pinsornsak P Rojanavijitkul S Chumchuen S Peri-articular tranexamic acid injection in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 17 313 10.1186/s12891-016-1176-7 27455842 42. Keyhani S Esmailiejah AA Abbasian MR Safdari F Which route of tranexamic acid administration is more effective to reduce blood loss following total knee arthroplasty? Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016 4 1 65 69 26894222 43. Aguilera X Martínez-Zapata MJ Hinarejos P Topical and intravenous tranexamic acid reduce blood loss compared to routine hemostasis in total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 135 7 1017 1025 10.1007/s00402-015-2232-8 25944156 44. Digas G Koutsogiannis I Meletiadis G Antonopoulou E Karamoulas V Bikos C Intra-articular injection of tranexamic acid reduce blood loss in cemented total knee arthroplasty Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015 25 7 1181 1188 10.1007/s00590-015-1664-8 26169991 45. Öztaş S Öztürk A Akalin Y The effect of local and systemic application of tranexamic acid on the amount of blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion after total knee replacement Acta Orthop Belg. 2015 81 4 698 707 26790793 46. Gomez-Barrena E Ortega-Andreu M Padilla-Eguiluz NG Pérez-Chrzanowska H Figueredo-Zalve R Topical intra-articular compared with intravenous tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss in primary total knee replacement: a double-blind, randomized, controlled, noninferiority clinical trial J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 96 23 1937 1944 10.2106/JBJS.N.00060 25471907 47. Patel JN Spanyer JM Smith LS Huang J Yakkanti MR Malkani AL Comparison of intravenous versus topical tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study J Arthroplasty. 2014 29 8 1528 1531 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.011 24768543 48. Sarzaeem MM Razi M Kazemian G Moghaddam ME Rasi AM Karimi M Comparing efficacy of three methods of tranexamic acid administration in reducing hemoglobin drop following total knee arthroplasty J Arthroplasty. 2014 29 8 1521 1524 10.1016/j.arth.2014.02.031 24726174 49. Soni A Saini R Gulati A Comparison between intravenous and intra-articular regimens of tranexamic acid in reducing blood loss during total knee arthroplasty J Arthroplasty. 2014 29 8 1525 1527 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.039 24814890 50. Seo JG Moon YW Park SH Kim SM Ko KR The comparative efficacies of intra-articular and IV tranexamic acid for reducing blood loss during total knee arthroplasty Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 21 8 1869 1874 10.1007/s00167-012-2079-2 22729012 51. Maniar RN Kumar G Singhi T Nayak RM Maniar PR Most effective regimen of tranexamic acid in knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled study in 240 patients Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 470 9 2605 2612 10.1007/s11999-012-2310-y 22419350 52. Zhang S, Xie J, Cao G, Lei Y, Huang Q, Pei F. Six-dose intravenous tranexamic acid regimen further inhibits postoperative fibrinolysis and reduces hidden blood loss following total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2019. 10.1055/s-0039-1694768. Epub ahead of print. 53. Chen Y Chen Z Cui S Li Z Yuan Z Topical versus systemic tranexamic acid after total knee and hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 95 41 4656 10.1097/MD.0000000000004656 54. McCormack PL Tranexamic acid: a review of its use in the treatment of hyperfibrinolysis Drugs. 2012 72 5 585 617 10.2165/11209070-000000000-00000 22397329 55. Xie J Hu Q Huang Q Ma J Lei Y Pei F Comparison of intravenous versus topical tranexamic acid in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: an updated meta-analysis Thromb Res. 2017 153 28 36 10.1016/j.thromres.2017.03.009 28319822 56. Fu Y Shi Z Han B Comparing efficacy and safety of 2 methods of tranexamic acid administration in reducing blood loss following total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 95 50 5583 10.1097/MD.0000000000005583 57. Tzatzairis T Drosos GI Vogiatzaki T Tilkeridis K Ververidis A Kazakos K Multiple intravenous tranexamic acid doses in total knee arthroplasty without tourniquet: a randomized controlled study Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 139 6 859 868 10.1007/s00402-019-03173-z 30903342 58. Lei YT Xie JW Huang Q Huang W Pei FX The antifibrinolytic and anti-inflammatory effects of a high initial-dose tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial Int Orthop. 2020 44 3 477 486 10.1007/s00264-019-04469-w 31879812 59. Tammachote N Raphiphan R Kanitnate S High-dose (3 g) topical tranexamic acid has higher potency in reducing blood loss after total knee arthroplasty compared with low dose (500 mg): a double-blind randomized controlled trial Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019 29 8 1729 1735 10.1007/s00590-019-02515-2 31359178