Trial reportOrthopaedic surgery2025
Effects of Continuous Graduated Pneumatic Compression and Intermittent Pneumatic Compression on Lower Limb Hemodynamics for VTE Prophylaxis in Arthroplasty.
Trial report in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIntermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is considered the standard of care for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the hospital setting. However, its widespread adoption after hospitalization has been limited due to its shortcomings in obstruction of venous valves and blood reflux. The objective of this study is to compare the effects of continuous graduated pneumatic compression (CGPC), a new device with a novel mechanism, and IPC on lower hemodynamics and the incidence of VTE in patients undergoing arthroplasty.
methodsWe randomized 123 participants undergoing knee arthroplasty to receive either IPC or CGPC from June 2022 through August 2023. An experienced sonographer used a Doppler ultrasound scanner to obtain hemodynamic indicators of venous blood. The primary outcome was the blood velocity of the femoral vein measured by a Doppler scanner. Secondary outcomes included the hemodynamic of the femoral vein and popliteal vein, quality of life at discharge and 30 days after surgery, symptomatic and asymptomatic VTE up to 30 days, and adverse events related to the IPC and CGPC device. For statistical analyses, Student's t-test, analysis of covariance, and the Mann-Whitney U test were used. Statistical significance was indicated with p < 0.05.
resultsThere was no significant difference in femoral vein velocity between the IPC and CGPC groups. However, CGPC demonstrated a significant increase in femoral vein flow compared to the IPC group, with a median (interquartile) increasing from 158.9 (122.9, 204.3) to 265.6 (203.3, 326.8) mL/min in the CGPC group and from 139.0 (103.3, 175.9) to 189.6 (161.4, 270.8) mL/min in the IPC group (p < 0.001). Similar trends were observed in popliteal vein measurements. The differences between the two groups were similar in terms of quality of life, incidence of VTE, and adverse events.
conclusionThe CGPC device provides a substantial increase in blood flow compared to the IPC device. Its safety and effectiveness have been preliminarily validated. The CGPC device presents a promising alternative for VTE prophylaxis in arthroplasty.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2300078201).
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.