{"title":"Foot Pump Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Preventing Deep Vein Thrombosis Following Surgery for Hip and Knee Replacement","authors":"Fengfei Lin, Bin Chen, Chaohui Lin, Ke Zheng","doi":"10.9738/intsurg-d-16-00215.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of the use of foot pump versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR).\n \n \n \n The use of chemoprophylactic agents in TKR and THR has been shown to result in increased complications like bleeding and wound drainage.\n \n \n \n Relevant publications indexed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embas, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CNKI, and VIPI were identified. Appropriate articles identified from the reference lists of the above searches were also reviewed.\n \n \n \n No significant difference in the rate of distal in the lower extremity was observed between the 2 groups (OR: 0.99; CI: 0.61–1.61; Z = 0.03; P = 0.97). No significant difference in the rate of proximal DVT in the lower extremity was observed between 2 groups (OR: 1.60, CI: 0.85–3.03, Z = 1.44, P = 0.15). No significant difference in the rate of PE was observed between 2 groups (OR 3.84, CI: 0.42 to 34.80, Z = 1.20, P = 0.23). But we found that postoperative drainage in foot pump group was less than that in LMWH group (OR -68.93, CI: −73.81 to −64.05, Z = 27.68, P < 0.00001), and oozing in foot pump group was less than that in LMWH group (OR: 0.21; CI: 0.10–0.47; Z = 3.86, P = 0.0001).\n \n \n \n The foot pump is a suitable alternative for TKR and THR patients in preventing DVT and PE, and can get less postoperative drainage and oozing side effects that are associated with LWMH.\n","PeriodicalId":14474,"journal":{"name":"International surgery","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9738/intsurg-d-16-00215.1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of the use of foot pump versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR).
The use of chemoprophylactic agents in TKR and THR has been shown to result in increased complications like bleeding and wound drainage.
Relevant publications indexed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embas, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CNKI, and VIPI were identified. Appropriate articles identified from the reference lists of the above searches were also reviewed.
No significant difference in the rate of distal in the lower extremity was observed between the 2 groups (OR: 0.99; CI: 0.61–1.61; Z = 0.03; P = 0.97). No significant difference in the rate of proximal DVT in the lower extremity was observed between 2 groups (OR: 1.60, CI: 0.85–3.03, Z = 1.44, P = 0.15). No significant difference in the rate of PE was observed between 2 groups (OR 3.84, CI: 0.42 to 34.80, Z = 1.20, P = 0.23). But we found that postoperative drainage in foot pump group was less than that in LMWH group (OR -68.93, CI: −73.81 to −64.05, Z = 27.68, P < 0.00001), and oozing in foot pump group was less than that in LMWH group (OR: 0.21; CI: 0.10–0.47; Z = 3.86, P = 0.0001).
The foot pump is a suitable alternative for TKR and THR patients in preventing DVT and PE, and can get less postoperative drainage and oozing side effects that are associated with LWMH.
期刊介绍:
International Surgery is the Official Journal of the International College of Surgeons. International Surgery has been published since 1938 and has an important position in the global scientific and medical publishing field.
The Journal publishes only open access manuscripts. Advantages and benefits of open access publishing in International Surgery include:
-worldwide internet transmission
-prompt peer reviews
-timely publishing following peer review approved manuscripts
-even more timely worldwide transmissions of unedited peer review approved manuscripts (“online first”) prior to having copy edited manuscripts formally published.
Non-approved peer reviewed manuscript authors have the opportunity to update and improve manuscripts prior to again submitting for peer review.