The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) produces recommendations on appropriate treatment within the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. The NICE guidelines on prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in orthopaedic surgery recommend that all patients be offered a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The linked hospital episode statistics of 219 602 patients were examined to determine the rates of complications following lower limb arthroplasty for the 12-month periods prior to and following the publication of these guidelines. These were compared with data from the National Joint Registry (England and Wales) regarding the use of LMWH during the same periods. There was a significant increase in the reported use of LMWH (59.5% to 67.6%, p < 0.001) following the publication of the guidelines. However, the 90-day venous thromboembolism events actually increased slightly following total hip replacement (THR, 1.69% to 1.84%, p = 0.06) and remained unchanged following total knee replacement (TKR, 1.99% to 2.04%). Return to theatre in the first 30 days for infection did not show significant changes. There was an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with thrombocytopenia, which was significant following THR (0.11% to 0.16%, p = 0.04). The recommendations from NICE are based on predicted reductions in venous thromboembolism events, reducing morbidity, mortality and costs to the NHS.

The early results in orthopaedic patients do not support these predictions, but do show an increase in complications.

We investigated whether simultaneous bilateral sequential total hip replacement (THR) would increase the rate of mortality and complications compared with unilateral THR in both low- and high-risk groups of patients.

We enrolled 978 patients with bilateral and 1666 with unilateral THR in the study. There were no significant pre-operative differences between the groups in regard to age, gender, body mass index, diagnosis, comorbidity as assessed by the grading of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), the type of prosthesis and the duration of follow-up. The mean follow-up was for 10.5 years (5 to 13) in the bilateral THR group and 9.8 years (5 to 14) in the unilateral group.

The peri-operative mortality rate of patients who had simultaneous bilateral THR (0.31%, three of 978 patients) was similar to that of patients with unilateral THR (0.18%, three of 1666 patients). The peri-operative mortality rate of patients in the bilateral group was similar in high risk and low risk patients (0.70%, two of 285 patients vs 0.14%, one of 693 patients) and this was also true in the unilateral THR group (0.40%, two of 500 patients vs 0.09%, one of 1166 patients). Patients with bilateral THR required more blood transfusions and a longer hospital stay than those in the unilateral THR group. There was no significant difference (p = 0.32) in the overall number of complications between the groups. This was also true for the low-risk (p = 0.81) vs high-risk (p = 0.631) patients.

Our findings confirm that simultaneous sequential bilateral THR is a safe option for patients who are considered to be either high or low risk according to the ASA classification.

Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice.

Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive.

Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged.

The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.

We carried out an audit on the result of achieving early walking in total knee replacement after instituting a new rehabilitation protocol, and assessed its influence on the development of deep-vein thrombosis as determined by Doppler ultrasound scanning on the fifth post-operative day. Early mobilisation was defined as beginning to walk less than 24 hours after knee replacement.

Between April 1997 and July 2002, 98 patients underwent a total of 125 total knee replacements. They began walking on the second post-operative day unless there was a medical contraindication. They formed a retrospective control group. A protocol which allowed patients to start walking at less than 24 hours after surgery was instituted in August 2002. Between August 2002 and November 2004, 97 patients underwent a total of 122 total knee replacements. They formed the early mobilisation group, in which data were prospectively gathered. The two groups were of similar age, gender and had similar medical comorbidities. The surgical technique and tourniquet times were similar and the same instrumentation was used in nearly all cases. All the patients received low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis and wore compression stockings post-operatively.

In the early mobilisation group 90 patients (92.8%) began walking successfully within 24 hours of their operation. The incidence of deep-vein thrombosis fell from 27.6% in the control group to 1.0% in the early mobilisation group (chi-squared test, p < 0.001). There was a difference in the incidence of risk factors for deep-vein thrombosis between the two groups. However, multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the institution of an early mobilisation protocol resulted in a 30-fold reduction in the risk of post-operative deep-vein thrombosis when we adjusted for other risk factors.

This population-based study investigated the incidence and trends in venous thromboembolic disease after total hip and knee arthroplasty over a ten-year period. Death or readmission for venous thromboembolic disease up to two years after surgery for all patients in Scotland was the primary outcome. The incidence of venous thromboembolic disease, including fatal pulmonary embolism, three months after surgery was 2.27% for primary hip arthroplasty and 1.79% for total knee arthroplasty. The incidence of fatal pulmonary embolism within three months was 0.22% for total hip arthroplasty and 0.15% for total knee arthroplasty. The majority of events occurred after hospital discharge, with no apparent trend over the period. The data support current advice that prophylaxis should be continued for at least six weeks following surgery. Despite the increased use of policies for prophylaxis and earlier mobilisation, there has been no change in the incidence of venous thromboembolic disease.

There is a high risk of venous thromboembolism when patients are immobilised following trauma. The combination of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with graduated compression stockings is frequently used in orthopaedic surgery to try and prevent this, but a relatively high incidence of thromboembolic events remains. Mechanical devices which perform continuous passive motion imitate contractions and increase the volume and velocity of venous flow.

In this study 227 trauma patients were randomised to receive either treatment with the Arthroflow device and LMWH or only with the latter. The Arthroflow device passively extends and plantarflexes the feet. Patients were assessed initially by venous-occlusion plethysmography, compression ultrasonography and continuous wave Doppler, which were repeated weekly without knowledge of the category of randomisation. Those who showed evidence of deep-vein thrombosis underwent venography for confirmation. The incidence of deep-vein thrombosis was 25% in the LMWH group compared with 3.6% in those who had additional treatment with the Arthroflow device (p < 0.001). There were no substantial complications or problems of non-compliance with the Arthroflow device. Logistic regression analysis of the risk factors of deep-vein thrombosis showed high odds ratios for operation (4.1), immobilisation (4.3), older than 40 years of age (2.8) and obesity (2.2).