THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Cavassin,Bruno Landal
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Brandalizze,Carolina Cabral, Rocha,Gabriel Wielisvky, Garbers,Luiz Augusto Fabricio De Melo, Kusma,Solena Ziemer, Teixeira,Fernando Borge, Vialle,Emiliano Neves, Vialle,Luiz Roberto Gomes
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Coluna/Columna
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-18512022000200302
Resumo: ABSTRACT Objective: To compare pharmacological and non-pharmacological prophylaxis in elective spine surgery to determine the risks of DVT, PTE, and epidural hematoma (EH) in both groups, as well as their respective treatment effectiveness. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis based on systematically searched articles, using combinations of MeSH terms related to chemoprophylaxis and non-chemoprophylaxis for prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in elective spine surgery. Adult patients were eligible for inclusion in the study, except for those with trauma, spinal cord injury, neoplasms, or those using vena cava filters. Results: Five studies were selected for this systematic review and meta-analysis: 3 retrospective studies, 1 prospective study, and 1 case series. Data analysis showed that 4.64% of patients treated with chemoprophylaxis had an unfavorable outcome regarding DVT, while this outcome occurred in 1.14% of patients not treated with chemoprophylaxis (p=0.001). Among patients using chemoprophylaxis, only 0.1% developed epidural hematoma and 0.38% developed PTE. Among those on non-pharmaceutical prophylaxis, 0.04% had EH (p=0.11) and 0.42% had PTE (p=0.45). Conclusions: No benefits were found for chemoprophylaxis as compared to non-chemoprophylaxis in preventing DVT in elective spine surgery, nor was there an increased risk of epidural hematoma or fatal thromboembolic events. Level of evidence III; Therapeutic studies; Investigation of treatment results.
id SBCO-1_ad83c4e3a6dd7eea63e8c4e62f85dc8e
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1808-18512022000200302
network_acronym_str SBCO-1
network_name_str Coluna/Columna
repository_id_str
spelling THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEWChemopreventionVenous ThrombosisPulmonary EmbolismSpinal Epidural HematomaSpineSystematic ReviewABSTRACT Objective: To compare pharmacological and non-pharmacological prophylaxis in elective spine surgery to determine the risks of DVT, PTE, and epidural hematoma (EH) in both groups, as well as their respective treatment effectiveness. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis based on systematically searched articles, using combinations of MeSH terms related to chemoprophylaxis and non-chemoprophylaxis for prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in elective spine surgery. Adult patients were eligible for inclusion in the study, except for those with trauma, spinal cord injury, neoplasms, or those using vena cava filters. Results: Five studies were selected for this systematic review and meta-analysis: 3 retrospective studies, 1 prospective study, and 1 case series. Data analysis showed that 4.64% of patients treated with chemoprophylaxis had an unfavorable outcome regarding DVT, while this outcome occurred in 1.14% of patients not treated with chemoprophylaxis (p=0.001). Among patients using chemoprophylaxis, only 0.1% developed epidural hematoma and 0.38% developed PTE. Among those on non-pharmaceutical prophylaxis, 0.04% had EH (p=0.11) and 0.42% had PTE (p=0.45). Conclusions: No benefits were found for chemoprophylaxis as compared to non-chemoprophylaxis in preventing DVT in elective spine surgery, nor was there an increased risk of epidural hematoma or fatal thromboembolic events. Level of evidence III; Therapeutic studies; Investigation of treatment results.Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna2022-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-18512022000200302Coluna/Columna v.21 n.2 2022reponame:Coluna/Columnainstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)instacron:SBCO10.1590/s1808-185120222102258863info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCavassin,Bruno LandalBrandalizze,Carolina CabralRocha,Gabriel WielisvkyGarbers,Luiz Augusto Fabricio De MeloKusma,Solena ZiemerTeixeira,Fernando BorgeVialle,Emiliano NevesVialle,Luiz Roberto Gomeseng2022-05-18T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1808-18512022000200302Revistahttps://www.revistacoluna.org/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpcoluna.columna@uol.com.br||revistacoluna@uol.com.br2177-014X1808-1851opendoar:2022-05-18T00:00Coluna/Columna - Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
title THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
spellingShingle THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Cavassin,Bruno Landal
Chemoprevention
Venous Thrombosis
Pulmonary Embolism
Spinal Epidural Hematoma
Spine
Systematic Review
title_short THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
title_full THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
title_fullStr THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
title_full_unstemmed THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
title_sort THE USE OF CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS OR NOT FOR DVT IN SPINE SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
author Cavassin,Bruno Landal
author_facet Cavassin,Bruno Landal
Brandalizze,Carolina Cabral
Rocha,Gabriel Wielisvky
Garbers,Luiz Augusto Fabricio De Melo
Kusma,Solena Ziemer
Teixeira,Fernando Borge
Vialle,Emiliano Neves
Vialle,Luiz Roberto Gomes
author_role author
author2 Brandalizze,Carolina Cabral
Rocha,Gabriel Wielisvky
Garbers,Luiz Augusto Fabricio De Melo
Kusma,Solena Ziemer
Teixeira,Fernando Borge
Vialle,Emiliano Neves
Vialle,Luiz Roberto Gomes
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Cavassin,Bruno Landal
Brandalizze,Carolina Cabral
Rocha,Gabriel Wielisvky
Garbers,Luiz Augusto Fabricio De Melo
Kusma,Solena Ziemer
Teixeira,Fernando Borge
Vialle,Emiliano Neves
Vialle,Luiz Roberto Gomes
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Chemoprevention
Venous Thrombosis
Pulmonary Embolism
Spinal Epidural Hematoma
Spine
Systematic Review
topic Chemoprevention
Venous Thrombosis
Pulmonary Embolism
Spinal Epidural Hematoma
Spine
Systematic Review
description ABSTRACT Objective: To compare pharmacological and non-pharmacological prophylaxis in elective spine surgery to determine the risks of DVT, PTE, and epidural hematoma (EH) in both groups, as well as their respective treatment effectiveness. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis based on systematically searched articles, using combinations of MeSH terms related to chemoprophylaxis and non-chemoprophylaxis for prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in elective spine surgery. Adult patients were eligible for inclusion in the study, except for those with trauma, spinal cord injury, neoplasms, or those using vena cava filters. Results: Five studies were selected for this systematic review and meta-analysis: 3 retrospective studies, 1 prospective study, and 1 case series. Data analysis showed that 4.64% of patients treated with chemoprophylaxis had an unfavorable outcome regarding DVT, while this outcome occurred in 1.14% of patients not treated with chemoprophylaxis (p=0.001). Among patients using chemoprophylaxis, only 0.1% developed epidural hematoma and 0.38% developed PTE. Among those on non-pharmaceutical prophylaxis, 0.04% had EH (p=0.11) and 0.42% had PTE (p=0.45). Conclusions: No benefits were found for chemoprophylaxis as compared to non-chemoprophylaxis in preventing DVT in elective spine surgery, nor was there an increased risk of epidural hematoma or fatal thromboembolic events. Level of evidence III; Therapeutic studies; Investigation of treatment results.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-18512022000200302
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-18512022000200302
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1808-185120222102258863
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Coluna/Columna v.21 n.2 2022
reponame:Coluna/Columna
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)
instacron:SBCO
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)
instacron_str SBCO
institution SBCO
reponame_str Coluna/Columna
collection Coluna/Columna
repository.name.fl_str_mv Coluna/Columna - Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv coluna.columna@uol.com.br||revistacoluna@uol.com.br
_version_ 1752126616772804608