Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Detailed Search Results
| Two mechanical methods for thromboembolism prophylaxis after gynaecological pelvic surgery: a prospective, randomised study |
| Gao J, Zhang Z-Y, Li Z, Liu C-D, Zhan YX, Qiao B-L, Sang C-Q, Guo S-L, Wang S-Z, Jiang Y, Zhao N |
| Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi [Chinese Medical Journal] 2012 Dec;125(23):4259-4263 |
| clinical trial |
| 4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: No. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
|
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is known to be an important social and health care problem because of its high incidence among patients who undergo surgery. Studies on the mechanical prophylaxis of thromboembolism after gynaecological pelvic surgery are few. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of mechanical thromboembolism prophylaxis after gynaecological pelvic surgery using a combination of graduated compression stockings (GCS) and intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) or GCS alone. METHODS: The study was performed on 108 patients who were randomly assigned to two groups. The first group received GCS before the operation and IPC during the operation (IPC+GCS group). The second group received GCS before the operation (GCS group). To analyze the effect of the preventive measures and the laboratory examination on the incidence of thrombosis and to compare the safety of these measures, the incidence of adverse reactions was assessed. RESULTS: The morbidity associated with DVT was 4.8% (5/104) in the IPC+GCS group and 12.5% (14/112) in the GCS group. There were significant statistical differences between the two groups. There were no adverse effects in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic combination of GCS and IPC was more effective than GCS alone for thrombosis prevention in high-risk patients undergoing gynaecological pelvic surgery, and there were no adverse effects in either group.
|
The database was last updated on 2 September 2024 (this includes records added or amended since 5 August 2024). The next update is planned for 14 October 2024. The total number of records on the database is 62,314.