Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2016
Combination prophylaxis versus pharmacologic prophylaxis alone for preventing deep vein thrombosis in hip surgery.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin Feng-Fei, Lin Chao-Hui, Chen Bin, Zheng Ke
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic and graduated compression stockings (GCS) prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone for preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in hip surgery.
METHODS: Relevant publications indexed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CNKI and Sinomed (CBM) were identified. Appropriate articles identified from the reference lists of the above searches were also reviewed.
RESULTS: Significant differences in the rate of distal DVT were observed between combination prophylaxis and pharmacological groups. When data from Fredin 1989 was excluded no significant difference in the rate of distal DVT was seen between groups. No significant difference in the rate of proximal DVT or PE was observed between combination and pharmacologic prophylaxis groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of pharmacological prophylaxis and GCS can decrease distal DVT in the lower extremity when compare to pharmacological prophylaxis alone, but it is not useful in decreasing proximal DVT and PE. If we use currently recommended pharmacologic prophylaxis it is not necessary to combine this with GCS.
METHODS: Relevant publications indexed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CNKI and Sinomed (CBM) were identified. Appropriate articles identified from the reference lists of the above searches were also reviewed.
RESULTS: Significant differences in the rate of distal DVT were observed between combination prophylaxis and pharmacological groups. When data from Fredin 1989 was excluded no significant difference in the rate of distal DVT was seen between groups. No significant difference in the rate of proximal DVT or PE was observed between combination and pharmacologic prophylaxis groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of pharmacological prophylaxis and GCS can decrease distal DVT in the lower extremity when compare to pharmacological prophylaxis alone, but it is not useful in decreasing proximal DVT and PE. If we use currently recommended pharmacologic prophylaxis it is not necessary to combine this with GCS.