ArticleStrategies in trauma and limb reconstruction
Thromboprophylaxis in Intramedullary Limb Lengthening Surgery.
Article in Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe use of intramedullary lengthening devices is becoming increasingly popular. There are limited data regarding the incidence of venous thromboembolism following intramedullary lengthening surgery and no reports or guidance for current practice on use of thromboprophylaxis. Following a case of post-operative deep vein thrombosis in our institution, we felt that it is important to assess best practice. We conducted a national survey to collect data that would describe current practice and help develop consensus for treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe identified surgeons across the UK that perform adult intramedullary limb lengthening through the British Limb Reconstruction Society membership and a Precise Users database. Surgeons were contacted and asked to respond to an online survey. Responses to thromboprophylaxis regimes employed in their practice and cases of venous thromboembolism were collated.
results24 out of 54 surgeons identified responded with a total of 454 cases of adult intramedullary lengthening (352 femoral and 102 tibial nails) performed over a five year period (January 2015-January 2020). Only one case of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) following femoral lengthening was reported. There is wide variability in practice both in terms of thromboprophylaxis risk assessment, choice of medications and duration of treatment. The vast majority of surgeons (85%) felt that there was insufficient evidence available to guide their practice.
conclusionsIntramedullary lengthening is a surgical treatment growing in popularity. There are limited data available to guide decision-making regarding aspects of treatment such as thromboprophylaxis. This is reflected in the wide variation in practice reported in this study. There are both a need and a desire to gather data that will allow us to come to a consensus and to guide safe practice. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Venous thromboembolism is a potential complication of lower limb lengthening surgery. We report on national incidence and current practices of thromboprophylaxis to allow for informed decision-making and help develop consensus for best practice. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Iliadis AD, Timms A, Fugazzotto S, et al. Thromboprophylaxis in Intramedullary Limb Lengthening Surgery. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2020;15(3):151-156.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.