Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1204 - 1209
1 Sep 2017
Fawi HMT Saba K Cunningham A Masud S Lewis M Hossain M Chopra I Ahuja S

Aims. To evaluate the incidence of primary venous thromboembolism (VTE), epidural haematoma, surgical site infection (SSI), and 90-day mortality after elective spinal surgery, and the effect of two protocols for prophylaxis. Patients and Methods. A total of 2181 adults underwent 2366 elective spinal procedures between January 2007 and January 2012. All patients wore anti-embolic stockings, mobilised early and were kept adequately hydrated. In addition, 29% (689) of these were given low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) while in hospital. SSI surveillance was undertaken using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Results. In patients who only received mechanical prophylaxis, the incidence of VTE was 0.59% and that of SSI 2.1%. In patients who were additionally given LMWH, the incidence of VTE was 0% and that of SSI 0.7%. The unadjusted p-value was 0.04 for VTE and 0.01 for SSI. There were no cases of epidural haematoma or 90-day mortality in either group. When adjusted for case-mix, LMWH remained a significant factor (p = 0.006) for VTE, but not for SSI. Conclusion. A peri-operative protocol involving mechanical anti-embolism stockings, adequate hydration, and early post-operative mobilisation is effective in significantly reducing the incidence of VTE. The addition of LMWH is safe in patients at higher risk of developing VTE. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1204–9


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_X | Pages 46 - 46
1 Apr 2012
Bryson D Braybrooke J
Full Access

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common complication following major joint surgery. While attention has focused on VTE following joint arthroplasty their exists a gap in the literature examining the incidence of VTE in spinal surgery; with a shortage of epidemiological data, guidelines for optimal prophylaxis are limited. This survey, undertaken at the 2009 BASS Annual Meeting, sought to examine prevailing trends in VTE thromboprophylaxis in spinal surgery and to compare selections made by Orthopaedic and Neurosurgeons. We developed a questionnaire based around eight clinical scenarios. Participants were asked to supply details on their speciality (orthopaedics or neurosurgery) and level of training (grade) and to select which method(s) of thromboprophylaxis they would employ for each scenario. Thirty-nine participants provided responses to the eight scenarios; complete details, including speciality and grade of those surveyed, were complied for 27 of the 39 questionnaires completed. LMWH was the preferred pharmacological method of thromboprophylaixs selected 31% and 72% of the time by orthopaedic and neurosurgeons respectively. For each of the eight clinical scenarios LMWH and BK TEDS were selected more frequently by neurosurgeons than orthopaedic surgeons who elected to employ early mobilisation and mechanical prophylaxis. Neurosurgeons were more likely to employ more than method of thromboprophylaxis. Thromboprophylactic selections differed between the two groups; Neurosurgeons preferred LMWH and BK TEDS whilst Early Mobilisation and Mechanical prophylaxis were the preferred methods of thromboprophylaxis amongst orthopaedic surgeons. Based on the results of this survey neurosurgeons more closely adhered to guidelines outlined by NICE/BASS


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXVI | Pages 34 - 34
1 Jun 2012
Rao P Pugh S Ahuja S
Full Access

Introduction. Reported incidence of DVT after spinal surgery ranges from 0-15% and PE 0.5-2.7%. Theoretically, manipulation of the vessels and venous stasis caused by retraction during anterior lumbar inter-body fusion may increase the propensity for thrombosis. The reported incidence of DVT and PE following major abdominal and pelvic surgery are high (up to 23%) and all these patients routinely receive chemical prophylaxis. Aim. Should patients undergoing ALIF surgery receive chemical prophylaxis routinely?. Materials and Methods. Retrospective review of ALIF procedures done between Jan 2007- Jan 2010. Review of case notes, radiology reports and telephone call to the patients to exclude DVT. Total of 76 patients underwent ALIF during this period. Forty six were female(60.5%) and 36 were 2 level fusions(47%). L5-S1 being commonly fused (76%) followed by L4-L5 (23%). Average surgical time from theatre records is 115 minutes(31-369 minutes). All patients received mechanical prophylaxis in the form of thigh length TED stockings. None of the patients were on treatment for DVT prior to surgery. Results. Three patients (3.9%) had Doppler proved DVT which required anticoagulation treatment. There was no reported incidence of PE. Discussion. There is no definite evidence in the literature to suggest ALIF surgery has higher incidence of thromboembolic complications, though theoretical possibility of increased risk. Current study suggests that incidence is 3.9% with mechanical prophylaxis alone which is very small when compared to incidence after major abdominal, pelvic or gynaecological procedures. Our small study sample suggests routine use of chemical prophylaxis to reduce the risk of DVT for anterior lumbar inter-body fusion is not justified


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXVI | Pages 61 - 61
1 Jun 2012
Bhagat S Lau S Ahuja S
Full Access

Purpose of Study. To investigate current practice of thromboprophylaxis in major UK spinal centres for both trauma and elective surgery, and to asses compliance with NICE guidelines. Methods. A telephonic survey was carried out which comprised of questions relating to current practice of thromboprophylaxis in major spinal units across the UK. Questions probed practice with regard to trauma versus elective surgery, agents used, timing of prophylaxis, length of treatment and whether practice has changed since the introduction of NICE guidelines. Results. Thirty specialised centres were contacted. Twenty eight centres followed NICE recommendations, with 2 centres using their own protocol. Four centres made changes to their existing protocols after the emergence of NICE guidelines. GCS (Graduated compression stockings) were uniformly used by all, with most centres using flowtron boots and/or foot in addition. The practices are differing within centres for elective versus trauma surgery. Of note, in patients with an acute cord injury, 20 centres used combined pre operative prophylaxis whereas 10 centres used only mechanical prophylaxis. Three units (10 %) describe a noticeable rise in complications related to chemoprophylaxis, whilst only one unit has reported a PE death within the last year. Discussion. Our survey assesses compliance to the NICE guidelines by the UK's spinal units. Mechanical prophylaxis appears to be the most common mode of prophylaxis understandably due to predictable safety profile. Use of chemo-prophylaxis varies amongst different surgeons and centres. Rather than a result of evidence based practice, the decision appears to be related to the previous experiences of that unit. Although the NICE guidelines provide a reasonable platform to the practice of thromboprophylaxis, more studies are required to evaluate the risks of thrombosis and bleeding events in spinal surgery