Chinese medical journal · 2012
Two mechanical methods for thromboembolism prophylaxis after gynaecological pelvic surgery: a prospective, randomised study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gao Jie, Zhang Zhen-Yu, Li Zhan, Liu Chong-Dong, Zhan Yu-Xin, Qiao Bao-Li, Sang Cui-Qin, Guo Shu-Li, Wang Shu-Zhen, Jiang Ying, Zhao Na
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is known to be an important social and health care problem because of its high incidence among patients who undergo surgery. Studies on the mechanical prophylaxis of thromboembolism after gynaecological pelvic surgery are few. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of mechanical thromboembolism prophylaxis after gynaecological pelvic surgery using a combination of graduated compression stockings (GCS) and intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) or GCS alone.
METHODS: The study was performed on 108 patients who were randomly assigned to two groups. The first group received GCS before the operation and IPC during the operation (IPC + GCS group). The second group received GCS before the operation (GCS group). To analyze the effect of the preventive measures and the laboratory examination on the incidence of thrombosis and to compare the safety of these measures, the incidence of adverse reactions was assessed.
RESULTS: The morbidity associated with DVT was 4.8% (5/104) in the IPC + GCS group and 12.5% (14/112) in the GCS group. There were significant statistical differences between the two groups. There were no adverse effects in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic combination of GCS and IPC was more effective than GCS alone for thrombosis prevention in high-risk patients undergoing gynaecological pelvic surgery, and there were no adverse effects in either group.
METHODS: The study was performed on 108 patients who were randomly assigned to two groups. The first group received GCS before the operation and IPC during the operation (IPC + GCS group). The second group received GCS before the operation (GCS group). To analyze the effect of the preventive measures and the laboratory examination on the incidence of thrombosis and to compare the safety of these measures, the incidence of adverse reactions was assessed.
RESULTS: The morbidity associated with DVT was 4.8% (5/104) in the IPC + GCS group and 12.5% (14/112) in the GCS group. There were significant statistical differences between the two groups. There were no adverse effects in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic combination of GCS and IPC was more effective than GCS alone for thrombosis prevention in high-risk patients undergoing gynaecological pelvic surgery, and there were no adverse effects in either group.