Literature DB >> 22401677

Should deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis be used in fast-track hip and knee replacement?

Per Kjaersgaard-Andersen, Henrik Kehlet.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22401677      PMCID: PMC3339521          DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2012.672094

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop        ISSN: 1745-3674            Impact factor:   3.717


× No keyword cloud information.
During the last decade, in-hospital programs for patients undergoing total hip replacement (THA) and total knee replacement (TKA) have changed dramatically from (1) staying in bed for 1–3 days on epidural pain treatment followed by mobilization on crutches for weeks including several restrictions in daily activities, to (2) mobilization a few hours after surgery, with no restrictions in daily activities and no more than 2–4 days in hospital (Kerr and Kohan 2008, Husted et al. 2011, Malviya et al. 2011). This change has been possible due to optimized opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocols together with local infiltration analgesia techniques, and a detailed education of the patients before, during, and after the operation. In that same period, evidence-based guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians recommended pharmacological prophylaxis after THA and TKA for at least 10 days but preferably up to 35 days (Geerts et al. 2008). This recommendation is mainly based on randomized studies comparing current and new low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and other anticoagulatory agents with a primary efficacy outcome on deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) including the non-symptomatic cases found by venography (Eriksson et al. 2008, Kakkar et al. 2008, Turpie et al. 2009, Lassen et al. 2010a, b). These authors did not state when their patients were mobilized after surgery, or for how many hours a day they were mobilized—factors that are known to have major importance in the development of DVT. However, some of the reports described a hospital stay of between 8 and 12 days (Turpie et al 2009, Lassen et al. 2010a, b), suggesting slow mobilization of patients. Furthermore, there have been reports of a possible risk of complications when patients are treated with long-term thromboprophylaxis, complications such as wound oozing, bleeding, or deep infection (Jameson et al. 2010). It is therefore important to treat patients for the shortest period possible to prevent symptomatic DVT and pulmonary embolism, but probably not the asymptomatic and more frequent DVT, although the latter requires further evaluation. Orthopedic surgeons worldwide have questioned whether we must treat our joint replacement patients for such long periods as recommended, and there is an open debate on how to create national guidelines for DVT prophylaxis after major joint replacement and other procedures (Davies and Rayment 2010, Polk and Qadan 2010, Treasure et al. 2010, Kakkar and Rushton-Smith 2011, Qadan et al. 2011, Poultsides et al. 2012). There is an urgent need for randomized studies of today’s fast-track joint replacement patients, to determine whether they really need DVT prophylaxis, and if so, the shortest time required for prophylaxis. Such data might save billions of dollars for our national health systems and prevent patients from being treated for an unnecessarily long time. However, the industry that has supported the current trials (Eriksson et al. 2008, Kakkar et al. 2008, Turpie et al. 2009, Lassen et al. 2010a, b, Lee et al. 2012) will probably neither sponsor nor initiate such studies, for obvious reasons. In the meantime, we await information from a prospective, large Danish cohort study involving 5,000 fast-track THA and TKA patients with prophylaxis only during the short period in hospital (2–4 days). The results will be analyzed in early 2012. However, preliminary data suggest that there is no need for prolonged prophylaxis in a fast-track setting (Husted et al. 2010) or with early mobilization (Chandrasekaran et al. 2009). Hopefully, international efforts may answer this important question, since the fast-track methodology is becoming more popular (Malviya et al. 2011, McDonald et al. 2011) but with a lack of specific information on thromboprophylaxis regimens despite very low thromboembolic complications (Malviya et al. 2011, McDonald et al. 2011). In conclusion, there is an urgent need for multicenter studies to assess the requirement for thromboprophylaxis in the context of fast-track THA and TKA.
  20 in total

1.  Primum non nocere - NICE guidelines on venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  R G Davies; R Rayment
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 6.955

2.  The impact of national guidelines for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism on the complications of arthroplasty of the lower limb.

Authors:  S S Jameson; A Bottle; A Malviya; S D Muller; M R Reed
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-01

3.  Extended duration rivaroxaban versus short-term enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Ajay K Kakkar; Benjamin Brenner; Ola E Dahl; Bengt I Eriksson; Patrick Mouret; Jim Muntz; Andrea G Soglian; Akos F Pap; Frank Misselwitz; Sylvia Haas
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2008-06-24       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  An enhanced recovery programme for primary total knee arthroplasty in the United Kingdom--follow up at one year.

Authors:  D A McDonald; R Siegmeth; A H Deakin; A W G Kinninmonth; N B Scott
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Developing guidelines for venous thromboembolism for The National Institute for Clinical Excellence: involvement of the orthopaedic surgical panel.

Authors:  T Treasure; L-Y Chong; C Sharpin; D Wonderling; K Head; J Hill
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-05

6.  Apixaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after knee replacement (ADVANCE-2): a randomised double-blind trial.

Authors:  Michael Rud Lassen; Gary E Raskob; Alexander Gallus; Graham Pineo; Dalei Chen; Philip Hornick
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-03-06       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Early mobilization after total knee replacement reduces the incidence of deep venous thrombosis.

Authors:  Sivashankar Chandrasekaran; Siva Kumar Ariaretnam; Jason Tsung; David Dickison
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.872

8.  Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bengt I Eriksson; Lars C Borris; Richard J Friedman; Sylvia Haas; Menno V Huisman; Ajay K Kakkar; Tiemo J Bandel; Horst Beckmann; Eva Muehlhofer; Frank Misselwitz; William Geerts
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-06-26       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Local infiltration analgesia: a technique for the control of acute postoperative pain following knee and hip surgery: a case study of 325 patients.

Authors:  Dennis R Kerr; Lawrence Kohan
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty (RECORD4): a randomised trial.

Authors:  Alexander G G Turpie; Michael R Lassen; Bruce L Davidson; Kenneth A Bauer; Michael Gent; Louis M Kwong; Fred D Cushner; Paul A Lotke; Scott D Berkowitz; Tiemo J Bandel; Alice Benson; Frank Misselwitz; William D Fisher
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-05-04       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  5 in total

1.  Association of Aspirin With Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients After Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared With Other Anticoagulants: A Noninferiority Analysis.

Authors:  Brandon R Hood; Mark E Cowen; Huiyong T Zheng; Richard E Hughes; Bonita Singal; Brian R Hallstrom
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 14.766

2.  Thromboprophylaxis only during hospitalisation in fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty, a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Christoffer C Jørgensen; Michael K Jacobsen; Kjeld Soeballe; Torben B Hansen; Henrik Husted; Per Kjærsgaard-Andersen; Lars T Hansen; Mogens B Laursen; Henrik Kehlet
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  The first 6 weeks of recovery after primary total hip arthroplasty with fast track.

Authors:  Lisette C M Klapwijk; Nina M C Mathijssen; Jeroen C Van Egmond; Bianca M Verbeek; Stephan B W Vehmeijer
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 3.717

4.  Fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty - have we reached the goal?

Authors:  Thomas W Wainwright; Henrik Kehlet
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  The first 6 weeks of recovery after total knee arthroplasty with fast track.

Authors:  Jeroen C Van Egmond; Hennie Verburg; Nina M C Mathijssen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 3.717

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.