Routine prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic disease after total hip replacement (THR) is recommended. Pneumatic compression with foot pumps seems to provide an alternative to chemical agents. However, the overall number of patients investigated in randomised clinical trials has been too small to draw evidence-based conclusions. This randomised clinical trial was carried out to compare the effectiveness and safety of mechanical versus chemical prophylaxis of DVT in patients after THR. Inclusion criteria were osteoarthritis of the hip and age less than 80 years. Exclusion criteria included a history of thromboembolic disease, heart disease, and bleeding diatheses. There were 216 consecutive patients considered for inclusion in the trial who were randomised either for management with the A-V Impulse System foot pump. We excluded 16 patients who did not tolerate continuous use of the foot pump or with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Patients were monitored for DVT using serial duplex sonography at 3, 10 and 45 days after surgery. DVT was detected in three of 100 patients in the foot-pump group and with six of 100 patients in the LMWH group (p < 0.05). The mean post-operative drainage was 259 ml in the foot-pump group and 328 ml in the LMWH group (p < 0.05). Patients in the foot-pump group had less swelling of the thigh (10 mm compared with 15 mm; p < 0.05). One patient developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. This study confirms the effectiveness and safety of mechanical prophylaxis of DVT in THR. Some patients cannot tolerate the foot pump

Aims

We studied the safety and efficacy of multimodal thromboprophylaxis in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) within the first 120 postoperative days, and the mortality during the first year. Multimodal prophylaxis includes discontinuation of procoagulant medications, VTE risk stratification, regional anaesthesia, an intravenous bolus of unfractionated heparin prior to femoral preparation, rapid mobilization, the use of pneumatic compression devices, and chemoprophylaxis tailored to the patient’s risk of VTE.

We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) in reducing blood loss and transfusion in total hip replacement (THR). The data were evaluated using the generic evaluation tool designed by the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. We identified 11 clinical trials which were suitable for detailed extraction of data. There were no trials that used TXA in revision THR. A total of seven studies (comprising 350 patients) were eligible for the blood loss outcome data. The use of TXA reduced intra-operative blood loss by a mean of 104 ml (95% confidence interval (CI) −164 to −44, p = 0.0006, heterogeneity I² 0%), postoperative blood loss by a mean of 172 ml (95% CI −263 to −81, p = 0.0002, heterogeneity I² 63%) and total blood loss by a mean of 289 ml (95% CI −440 to −138, p < 0.0002, heterogeneity I² 54%).

TXA led to a significant reduction in the proportion of patients requiring allogeneic blood transfusion (risk difference −0.20, 95% CI −0.29 to −0.11, p < 0.00001, I² 15%). There were no significant differences in deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, infection rates or other complications among the study groups.

Despite increasing scientific investigation, the best method for preventing post-operative deep-vein thrombosis remains unclear. In the wake of the publication of the Pulmonary Embolism Prevention trial and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) on the prevention of thromboembolism, we felt that it was timely to survey current thromboprophylactic practices. Questionnaires were sent to all consultants on the register of the British Orthopaedic Association. The rate of response was 62%. The survey showed a dramatic change in practice towards the use of chemoprophylaxis since the review by Morris and Mitchell in 1976. We found that there was a greater uniformity of opinion and prescribing practices in Scotland, consistent with the SIGN guidelines, than in the rest of the UK. We argue in favour of the use of such documents which are based on a qualitative review of current scientific literature.