Key result
Mechanical prophylaxis using a foot pump resulted in a lower rate of deep-vein thrombosis compared to low-molecular-weight heparin (3.0% vs 6.0%; p<0.05) after total hip replacement.
Why the study?
Does mechanical prophylaxis with a foot pump reduce deep-vein thrombosis compared to low-molecular-weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement?
Population
200 patients aged <80 years with osteoarthritis of the hip undergoing total hip replacement. Excluded…
Comparison
Mechanical prophylaxis with A-V Impulse System… vs Chemical prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight…
Design
RCT, Randomised
Follow-up
45 days
Authors
Loading...
Supports foot-pump preference over LMWH for post-THR DVT prevention; extends mechanical prophylaxis evidence in orthopedic RCTs.
RCT (n=200)
Does mechanical prophylaxis with a foot pump reduce deep-vein thrombosis compared to low-molecular-weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 3% vs 6%
p-value: p=<0.05
Mechanical prophylaxis with a foot pump is an effective and safe alternative to LMWH for DVT prevention after total hip replacement, significantly reducing DVT incidence, post-operative drainage, and thigh swelling.
Pitto et al. (2004) conducted an RCT in Deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement (n=200). A-V Impulse System foot pump vs. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was evaluated on Deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) (p=<0.05). Mechanical prophylaxis using a foot pump resulted in a lower rate of deep-vein thrombosis compared to low-molecular-weight heparin (3.0% vs 6.0%; p<0.05) after total hip replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: