Tranexamic Acid Efficacy Varies by Breast Procedure Type

Targeting Hematoma Risk in Breast Surgery: Refining Tranexamic Acid Use

Postoperative hematoma is a frequent and burdensome complication in breast surgery, often requiring reoperation. While the antifibrinolytic agent tranexamic acid (TXA) has shown efficacy in reducing bleeding in many surgical settings [1, 2, 3], its application in breast surgery has been guided by evidence that often combines disparate procedures [4, 5, 6, 7]. This practice may obscure important differences in benefit, as the extent of tissue dissection varies significantly between, for example, a primary augmentation and a reduction mammaplasty [8, 9]. A new large-scale study sought to resolve this ambiguity by evaluating the procedure-specific efficacy of TXA, providing a more granular evidence base for clinical decision-making.

Study Design and Patient Cohort

To clarify the role of tranexamic acid (TXA), investigators conducted a large retrospective cohort study analyzing 5,202 consecutive breast procedures performed at a single private hospital between 2019 and 2025. The cohort was diverse, including 3,738 primary augmentations, 943 reduction mammaplasties, 358 explantations with mastopexy, and 163 explantations alone. Because TXA administration was at the discretion of the surgeon, its use evolved over the study period. To account for this and other potential confounders, the researchers applied Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting. This statistical technique creates balanced, comparable groups by weighting individual patient data, effectively simulating a randomized trial and mitigating biases from non-random treatment assignment. The primary outcome was clinically significant hematoma requiring surgical intervention within 30 days; isolated bruising without a palpable fluid collection was not included.

Procedure-Specific Hematoma Reduction with TXA

Analysis revealed a dramatic shift in clinical practice, with TXA use climbing from 7.0% of procedures in 2019 to 93.0% in 2025. After statistical adjustments ensured the TXA and non-TXA groups were comparable on baseline characteristics (all Standardized Mean Differences <0.2, indicating successful balancing), a clear, procedure-dependent pattern of efficacy emerged. For reduction mammaplasty, a procedure involving extensive glandular tissue dissection, TXA was highly protective. The rate of hematoma requiring reoperation fell from 7.2% without TXA to 2.2% with TXA (adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] 0.28, 95% CI 0.14–0.58, p<0.001). This corresponds to a Number Needed to Treat (NNT) of 20 to prevent one surgical re-intervention for hematoma. A similar benefit was seen in explantation with mastopexy, where hematoma rates dropped from 6.0% to 1.6% (adjusted OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20–0.88, p<0.001). In stark contrast, TXA conferred no detectable benefit in primary augmentation, where tissue disruption is typically more limited. Hematoma rates were 1.2% in both the treated and untreated groups (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.36–2.42, p=0.905), a finding that held true regardless of implant placement plane.

Safety Profile and Secondary Outcomes

A critical consideration for any prophylactic therapy is its safety. In this large cohort, the administration of TXA was not associated with any adverse safety signals. Specifically, no thromboembolic events were recorded in any of the 5,202 procedures, providing reassurance regarding this known, albeit rare, risk associated with antifibrinolytic agents. The study also examined secondary complications. While a statistically lower rate of surgical site infection was observed in the TXA group (OR 0.47, p=0.02), the authors appropriately caution that this finding should be considered exploratory. The low number of infection events and the lack of a clear biological mechanism for such an effect mean this could be a chance finding. For other outcomes, including seroma and wound dehiscence, there were no significant differences between the groups.

Clinical Implications for Targeted Prophylaxis

These findings provide a clear rationale for moving away from universal TXA prophylaxis in breast surgery and toward a more targeted, evidence-based approach. The data strongly suggest that the benefit of TXA is directly related to the extent of surgical dissection and the associated risk of bleeding from parenchymal tissue. The significant reduction in hematoma rates for reduction mammaplasty and explantation with mastopexy supports the routine use of TXA in these higher-risk procedures. Conversely, the lack of a statistically detectable benefit in primary augmentation, a procedure with comparatively less tissue disruption, indicates that routine prophylaxis is not warranted. By tailoring TXA administration to the specific procedure being performed, clinicians can optimize patient outcomes and resource use, reserving the intervention for cases where it provides a clear and substantial protective effect against hematoma.

References

1. Mishra R, Gupta A, Das S, et al. Role of Tranexamic Acid in the Management of Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.. Neurology India. 2025. doi:10.4103/neurol-india.Neurol-India-D-24-00263

2. Barros LDC, Avancini C, Gonçalves PE, Paiva WS, Gurgel RQ, Oliveira AMP. Efficacy, safety and dose patterns of tranexamic acid in meningioma surgery: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Neurosurgical review. 2025. doi:10.1007/s10143-025-03180-2

3. Putra PPAWK, Asmara AAGY. Tranexamic Application on Open Procedure of Shoulder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Study. International journal of research and review. 2026. doi:10.52403/ijrr.20260320

4. Buheiri AR, Tveskov L, Dines LM, Bagge JD, Möller S, Bille C. Tranexamic Acid in Breast Surgery – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Breast Cancer. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2025.01.011

5. Fung E, Montalmant KE, Roth JM, et al. Utility of Tranexamic Acid in Reduction Mammaplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2025. doi:10.1007/s00266-025-05052-y

6. Althobaiti MA, Maniya MT, Alelyani RH, et al. Tranexamic Acid for Postoperative Outcomes in Breast Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2025. doi:10.1007/s00266-025-04772-5

7. Huynh M, Wong CR, McRae M, Voineskos SH, McRae M. The Effects of Tranexamic Acid in Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 2023. doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000010479

8. Alzuhayri R, Alzuhayri G, Alasiri N, et al. Is tranexamic acid effective in reducing bleeding during breast surgeries? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Medicine in Developing Countries. 2025. doi:10.24911/ijmdc.51-1765689556

9. Fung E, Godek M, Roth JM, Yu BZ, Montalmant KE, Henderson PW. 189. The Current State of Tranexamic Acid in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open. 2025. doi:10.1097/01.GOX.0001112704.68214.b0