World journal of surgery · 2006
Posttraumatic thromboprophylaxis revisited: an argument against the current methods of DVT and PE prophylaxis after injury.
Сравнительное исследованиеРедакционная статьяНазвание 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.
Velmahos George C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis after injury is a controversial issue. Practices and outcomes vary widely.
METHODS: Review of selected trauma literature on venous thromboprophylaxis after injury.
RESULTS: Multiple trauma articles suggest that the efficacy of different methods of thromboprophylaxis is unproven. Most of the practices on this issue are extrapolated from studies which were performed in non-trauma patients and therefore, may not be applicable in the unique trauma population.
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of undisputable evidence, none of the current methods of venous thromboprophylaxis after injury should be considered as standard of care. There is a need to discover new methods of thromboprophylaxis for the Trauma patient.
METHODS: Review of selected trauma literature on venous thromboprophylaxis after injury.
RESULTS: Multiple trauma articles suggest that the efficacy of different methods of thromboprophylaxis is unproven. Most of the practices on this issue are extrapolated from studies which were performed in non-trauma patients and therefore, may not be applicable in the unique trauma population.
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of undisputable evidence, none of the current methods of venous thromboprophylaxis after injury should be considered as standard of care. There is a need to discover new methods of thromboprophylaxis for the Trauma patient.