BACKGROUND: Graduated compression stockings (GCS) can effectively reduce postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and their use is recommended by expert committees. However, it appears that GCS are not frequently used. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the customary use of GCS in surgical settings in the City of Hamburg, Germany, and to present evidence on the effectiveness of GCS. METHODS: A questionnaire on the use of thromboprophylaxis was sent to 48 surgeons in Hamburg. In addition, a comprehensive search for randomized-controlled trials, reviews, and meta-analyses indexed in MEDLINE (1984-06/2002) and the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002) was conducted to show the effectiveness of GCS compared to nontreatment, other antithrombotic methods, or combined treatment. RESULTS: Of 48 surgeons 39 responded. Seven surgeons dismissed the use of GCS for thromboprophylaxis, 3 used GCS alone, 25 GCS in combination with heparin, and 4 used GCS only for patients at high risk. The review of the literature revealed the effectiveness of GCS in general and for abdominal surgical patients. Enhanced benefit is suggested when combining GCS with another intervention such as low-dose unfractionated heparin. Single application of GCS in orthopedic surgical or neurosurgical patients using venography showed no effect when compared to combined treatment of GCS and low molecular weight heparin. Trials with patients undergoing gynecological and urological surgeries are rare. There is a lack of trials investigating health-related quality of life and costs associated with the use of GCS. Complications are poorly reported. A determination as to the appropriate length of stockings is presently not possible. CONCLUSIONS: GCS should be integral part of DVT prophylaxis in surgical departments. Their ineffectiveness is likely in some surgical populations.
BACKGROUND: Graduated compression stockings (GCS) can effectively reduce postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and their use is recommended by expert committees. However, it appears that GCS are not frequently used. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the customary use of GCS in surgical settings in the City of Hamburg, Germany, and to present evidence on the effectiveness of GCS. METHODS: A questionnaire on the use of thromboprophylaxis was sent to 48 surgeons in Hamburg. In addition, a comprehensive search for randomized-controlled trials, reviews, and meta-analyses indexed in MEDLINE (1984-06/2002) and the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002) was conducted to show the effectiveness of GCS compared to nontreatment, other antithrombotic methods, or combined treatment. RESULTS: Of 48 surgeons 39 responded. Seven surgeons dismissed the use of GCS for thromboprophylaxis, 3 used GCS alone, 25 GCS in combination with heparin, and 4 used GCS only for patients at high risk. The review of the literature revealed the effectiveness of GCS in general and for abdominal surgical patients. Enhanced benefit is suggested when combining GCS with another intervention such as low-dose unfractionated heparin. Single application of GCS in orthopedic surgical or neurosurgical patients using venography showed no effect when compared to combined treatment of GCS and low molecular weight heparin. Trials with patients undergoing gynecological and urological surgeries are rare. There is a lack of trials investigating health-related quality of life and costs associated with the use of GCS. Complications are poorly reported. A determination as to the appropriate length of stockings is presently not possible. CONCLUSIONS: GCS should be integral part of DVT prophylaxis in surgical departments. Their ineffectiveness is likely in some surgical populations.