Dataset Information

Ultrasound screening for deep venous thrombosis detection: a prospective evaluation of 200 plastic surgery outpatients.

ABSTRACT: Our understanding of the pathophysiology of venous thromboembolism is largely based on the experience of orthopedic patients undergoing total joint replacement. Little is known regarding the natural history of venous thromboembolism in plastic surgery outpatients. Today, ultrasound screening, including compression and Doppler color flow imaging, represents the standard for detecting deep venous thromboses.Ultrasound screening was offered to 200 consecutive plastic surgery outpatients undergoing 205 operations. Patients were scanned before surgery, on the day after surgery, and approximately 1 week after surgery. No patient declined to participate (inclusion rate, 100%). Spontaneous breathing, Avoid gas, Face up, Extremities mobile anesthesia was used, with no chemoprophylaxis. Patient surveys were administered.Six hundred ultrasound screening tests were performed. All scans performed the day after surgery were negative. Only one examination was positive, 8 days after a lipoabdominoplasty. Subsequent scans revealed complete resolution of the thrombosis with anticoagulation. Ninety percent of surveyed patients would choose to have ultrasound screening in the future.The natural history of thromboembolism in plastic surgery outpatients differs from orthopedic patients. The risk of a deep venous thrombosis in a patient treated with Spontaneous breathing, Avoid gas, Face up, Extremities mobile anesthesia is approximately 0.5%. Thromboses are unlikely to develop intraoperatively. In the single affected patient, the thrombosis was located distally, in a location that is less prone to embolism and highly susceptible to anticoagulation. Ultrasound screening is an effective and highly feasible method to identify affected patients for treatment.

SUBMITTER: Swanson E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4387154 | biostudies-other | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ultrasound screening for deep venous thrombosis detection: a prospective evaluation of 200 plastic surgery outpatients.

Swanson Eric E

Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 20150301 3

<h4>Background</h4>Our understanding of the pathophysiology of venous thromboembolism is largely based on the experience of orthopedic patients undergoing total joint replacement. Little is known regarding the natural history of venous thromboembolism in plastic surgery outpatients. Today, ultrasound screening, including compression and Doppler color flow imaging, represents the standard for detecting deep venous thromboses.<h4>Methods</h4>Ultrasound screening was offered to 200 consecutive plas ...[more]

PMID: 25878943

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStudies have shown routine ultrasound surveillance (RUSS) will facilitate deep vein thrombosis (DVT) detection in patients with trauma and reduce the subsequent incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE); however, the findings were inconsistent. In adults with trauma at a high risk of venous thromboembolism, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared RUSS outcomes with those of "no RUSS."MethodsThree databases were screened for relevant articles from inception to October 18, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing RUSS with no RUSS were included. We used relative risks (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), and mean differences to pool effect estimates for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. The cochrane risk of bias or the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions were used to assess bias risk. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation framework assessed the certainty of the evidence.FindingsOut of 1685 articles, 5 met the inclusion criteria (RCT: 1; observational studies: 4). Observational studies suggested RUSS is associated with higher odds of DVT detection (OR, 4.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.13-7.57; very low certainty). Whereas higher risks of DVT were associated with RUSS in the RCT (distal DVT: RR, 15.48; 95% CI, 7.62-31.48; low certainty, and proximal DVT: RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.04-5.39; very low certainty). Reduced odds of PE risk were observed with the RUSS (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.91; very low certainty). Observational studies indicated that RUSS had an uncertain effect on mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.06-3.49). In the RCT, times to proximal and distal DVT diagnoses were shorter with RUSS (proximal DVT, mean difference 2.25 days shorter [95% CI, 5.74-1.24]; distal DVT, mean differences 1.56 days shorter [95% CI, 4.22-1.12]; very low certainty for both). Increasing bleeding risk was not linked to the RUSS group (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.31-4.92).InterpretationThe RUSS efficacy in adults with trauma at high risk for venous thromboembolism showed that it increases DVT detection, decreases PE incidence, and shortens the time to DVT diagnosis, with an uncertain impact on mortality. The evidence is low or very low in certainty because of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and indirectness.

Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant perioperative risk with many common orthopaedic procedures. Currently, there is no standardized recommendation for the use of VTE prophylaxis during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. This study sought to evaluate the current prophylactic practices of fellowship-trained sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons in the United States.HypothesisVery few surgeons use perioperative VTE prophylaxis for ACL reconstructive surgery.Study designSurvey.MethodsSurveys were emailed to the alumni networks of 4 large ACGME-accredited sports medicine fellowship programs. Questions were focused on their current use of chemical and nonchemical VTE prophylaxis.ResultsSurveys were completed by 142 surgeons in the United States, yielding a response rate of 32%. Of those who responded, 50.7% stated that they routinely use chemical prophylaxis, with 95.5% of those using aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA]). There was no standardized dosing protocol, with respondents using ASA 325 mg once (46%) or twice daily (26%) or ASA 81 mg once (18%) or twice (10%) daily. The most common reason for not including chemical prophylaxis within the reconstruction procedure was that it is unnecessary given the low risk of VTE. Physicians also based their prophylaxis regimen more on their own clinical experience than concern for litigation.ConclusionHalf of all sports medicine fellowship-trained surgeons surveyed routinely use chemical VTE prophylaxis after ACL reconstruction, with more than 90% of those using ASA. Of those using ASA, there was no prevailing dosing protocol. For those not using chemical prophylaxis, the most important reason was that it was felt to be unnecessary due to the risks outweighing the benefits. Those who do not regularly use chemical prophylaxis would be willing to, however, if a patient had a personal or family history of clotting disorder or is currently on birth control. Additionally, clinical experience was the primary driver for a current prophylaxis protocol.Clinical relevanceThis survey study evaluating the use of VTE prophylaxis with ACL reconstruction lends clinical insight to the current practice of a large, geographically diverse group of fellowship-trained sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons in the United States.

Dataset Information

Ultrasound screening for deep venous thrombosis detection: a prospective evaluation of 200 plastic surgery outpatients.

Publications

Ultrasound screening for deep venous thrombosis detection: a prospective evaluation of 200 plastic surgery outpatients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets