Does the choice of chemoprophylaxis affect the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in lumbar fusion surgery? A systematic review of the literature

To date, the available guidance on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in elective lumbar fusion surgery is largely open to surgeon interpretation and preference without any specific suggested chemoprophylactic regimen. This study aimed to comparatively analyze the incidence of deep vein thrombo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Brain & spine 2023, Vol.3, p.102711-102711, Article 102711
Hauptverfasser: Muthu, Sathish, Mavrovounis, Georgios, Corluka, Stipe, Buser, Zorica, Brodano, Giovanni Barbanti, Wu, Yabin, Meisel, Hans-Jorg, Wang, Jeffrey, Yoon, S. Tim, Demetriades, Andreas K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To date, the available guidance on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in elective lumbar fusion surgery is largely open to surgeon interpretation and preference without any specific suggested chemoprophylactic regimen. This study aimed to comparatively analyze the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) with the use of commonly employed chemoprophylactic agents such as unfractionated heparin (UH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in lumbar fusion surgery. An independent systematic review of four scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science) was performed to identify relevant articles as per the preferred reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting on DVT/PE outcomes of lumbar fusion surgery in adult patients with UH or LMWH chemoprophylaxis were included for analysis. Analysis was performed using the Stata software. Twelve studies with 8495 patients were included in the analysis. A single-arm meta-analysis of the included studies found a DVT incidence of 14% (95%CI [8%–20%]) and 1% (95%CI [-6% - 8%]) with LMWH and UH respectively. Both the chemoprophylaxis agents prevented PE with a noted incidence of 0% (95%CI [0%–0.1%]) and 0% (95%CI [0%–1%]) with LMWH and UH respectively. The risk of bleeding-related complications with the usage of LMWH and UH was 0% (95% CI [0.0%–0.30%]) and 3% (95% CI [0.3%–5%]) respectively. Both LMWH and UH reduces the overall incidence of DVT/PE, but there is a paucity of evidence analyzing the comparative effectiveness of the chemoprophylaxis regimens in lumbar fusion procedures. The heterogeneity in data prevents any conclusions, as there remains an evidence gap. We recommend future high-quality randomized controlled trials to investigate in this regard to help develop recommendations on thromboprophylaxis usage. •Incidence of DVT with LMWH and unfractioned heparin was 14% and 1% respectively.•Both the chemoprophylaxis agents prevented PE with a noted incidence of 0% with LMWH and 1% with unfractioned heparin.•The risk of bleeding-related complications with LMWH and unfractioned heparin usage was 0% and 3% respectively.
ISSN:2772-5294
2772-5294
DOI:10.1016/j.bas.2023.102711