We have located links that may give you full text access.
Pneumatic compression device does not show effective thromboprophylaxis following total knee arthroplasty in a low incidence population.
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research : OTSR 2018 December 14
INTRODUCTION: Purpose of this study was to assess whether the intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) device would be an effective prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in a low incidence population.
HYPOTHESIS: The mechanical thromboprophylaxis could reduce the incidence of DVT compared to non-prophylaxis group and would have similar efficacy as the chemoprophylaxis following TKA in a low DVT incidence population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2009 to June 2016, 1259 elective primary TKA with preoperative diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis in a single institute were enrolled. Patients were divided into three groups: those who were managed with chemoprophylaxis (CPX group, 414 cases), with mechanical prophylaxis (IPC group, 425 cases), or without pharmacological and mechanical prophylaxis (control group, 420 cases). All patients underwent preoperative ultrasonography and computed tomographic venography on postoperative day 6 to assess development of DVT. The incidence of overall, proximal, symptomatic DVT and symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) were compared among the groups. Major and minor bleeding complications were also evaluated.
RESULTS: The incidence of overall DVT was 14.8% in control group, 6.3% in CPX group and 11.3% in IPC group respectively and CPX group showed significantly lower incidence than other two groups (p<0.001). The incidence of proximal DVT was 1.9% in control group, 0.7% in CPX group and 0.9% in IPC group respectively (p>0.05). The incidence of symptomatic DVT was 0.7% in control group, 0% in CPX group and 0.7% in IPC group respectively (p>0.05). There was no case of symptomatic PE diagnosed during hospital stay in all patients.
DISCUSSION: Single use of IPC device could not reach significant level of DVT prophylaxis compared to control group and only chemoprophylaxis showed significantly reduce the incidence of overall DVT following TKA. Single use of IPC device does not show effective thromboprophylaxis in a low DVT incidence population.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, case control study.
HYPOTHESIS: The mechanical thromboprophylaxis could reduce the incidence of DVT compared to non-prophylaxis group and would have similar efficacy as the chemoprophylaxis following TKA in a low DVT incidence population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2009 to June 2016, 1259 elective primary TKA with preoperative diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis in a single institute were enrolled. Patients were divided into three groups: those who were managed with chemoprophylaxis (CPX group, 414 cases), with mechanical prophylaxis (IPC group, 425 cases), or without pharmacological and mechanical prophylaxis (control group, 420 cases). All patients underwent preoperative ultrasonography and computed tomographic venography on postoperative day 6 to assess development of DVT. The incidence of overall, proximal, symptomatic DVT and symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) were compared among the groups. Major and minor bleeding complications were also evaluated.
RESULTS: The incidence of overall DVT was 14.8% in control group, 6.3% in CPX group and 11.3% in IPC group respectively and CPX group showed significantly lower incidence than other two groups (p<0.001). The incidence of proximal DVT was 1.9% in control group, 0.7% in CPX group and 0.9% in IPC group respectively (p>0.05). The incidence of symptomatic DVT was 0.7% in control group, 0% in CPX group and 0.7% in IPC group respectively (p>0.05). There was no case of symptomatic PE diagnosed during hospital stay in all patients.
DISCUSSION: Single use of IPC device could not reach significant level of DVT prophylaxis compared to control group and only chemoprophylaxis showed significantly reduce the incidence of overall DVT following TKA. Single use of IPC device does not show effective thromboprophylaxis in a low DVT incidence population.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, case control study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app