PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

P Wille-Jørgensen

Publications and source records attributed to P Wille-Jørgensen.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Influence of caseload and surgical speciality on outcome following surgery for colorectal cancer: a review of evidence. Part 2: long-term outcome.

OBJECTIVE: We reviewed recent literature to assess the impact of hospital caseload, surgeon's caseload and education on long-term outcome following colorectal cancer surgery. METHOD: We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for relevant literature starting from 1992. We selected hospital caseload, surgeon's caseload and surgeon's education, type of hospital, and surgeon's experience as variables of interest. Measures of outcome were recurrence-free survival and overall survival, and for rectal cancer frequency of permanent stoma. We reviewed the 34 studies according to tumour location: colonic cancer, rectal cancer, or colorectal cancer. We described the studies individually and performed a meta-analysis whenever it was considered appropriate. RESULTS: For colonic cancer, overall survival improved with increasing hospital caseload, odds ratio (OR) 1.22 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-1.28], and surgeon's education. For rectal cancer, overall survival improved with increasing hospital caseload, OR 1.38 (95% CI 1.19-1.60), and, possibly by surgeon' education and experience. Cancer-free survival was strongly influenced by surgeon's education. The colostomy rate was less in high caseload hospitals, OR 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.85). For colorectal cancer, overall survival improved with surgeon's education. CONCLUSION: The data have provided evidence that long-term survival following colorectal cancer surgery in general improved significantly with increasing hospital caseload and surgeon's education.

Colonic Neoplasms↗
PubMed2007

Influence of caseload and surgical speciality on outcome following surgery for colorectal cancer: a review of evidence. Part 1: short-term outcome.

OBJECTIVE: An association between caseload and outcome has been reported for complex surgical procedures. We systematically reviewed recent literature to determine whether caseload and surgical speciality are associated with short-term outcome following colorectal cancer surgery. METHOD: We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for relevant publications starting in 1992. We selected hospital caseload and type, and surgeon's caseload, education and experience as variables of interest. Measures of outcome were postoperative morbidity, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, and for rectal cancer anastomotic leak. We stratified the 35 reviewed studies by tumor location: colonic cancer, rectal cancer, or colorectal cancer and described the studies individually. A meta-analysis was performed only when it was considered appropriate. RESULTS: For colonic cancer, postoperative morbidity was associated with surgeon's caseload and education. Postoperative mortality was strongly associated with hospital caseload (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55-0.73), and surgeon's caseload (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39-0.64). It was also influenced by surgeon's education and experience. For rectal cancer, we found no evidence of an association between the selected variables and short-term outcome, including frequency of anastomotic leak. For colorectal cancer, there was evidence for an association between postoperative morbidity and hospital caseload. CONCLUSION: Our review offers evidence for a positive association between high hospital caseload, surgeon's caseload, sub-speciality and experience and improved short-term outcome in colonic cancer surgery. We failed to find evidence of a relationship for rectal cancer surgery, possibly owing to methodological artifacts. No study reported an inverse relation.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2006

Prolonged prophylaxis with dalteparin to prevent late thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a multicenter randomized open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing major abdominal surgery carry a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the optimal duration of postoperative thromboprophylaxis is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis with the low molecular weight heparin (dalteparin), administered for 28 days after major abdominal surgery compared to 7 days' treatment. PATIENTS/METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, assessor-blinded, open-label, randomized trial was performed in order to evaluate prolonged thromboprophylaxis after major abdominal surgery. In total, 590 patients were recruited, of whom 427 were randomized and received at least 1 day of study medication, and 343 reached an evaluable endpoint. The primary efficacy endpoint was objectively verified VTE occurring between 7 and 28 days after surgery. All patients underwent bilateral venography at day 28. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of VTE was reduced from 16.3% with short-term thromboprophylaxis (29/178 patients) to 7.3% after prolonged thromboprophylaxis (12/165) (relative risk reduction 55%; 95% confidence interval 15-76; P=0.012). The number that needed to be treated to prevent one case of VTE was 12 (95% confidence interval 7-44). Bleeding events were not increased with prolonged compared with short-term thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Four-week administration of dalteparin, 5000 IU once daily, after major abdominal surgery significantly reduces the rate of VTE, without increasing the risk of bleeding, compared with 1 week of thromboprophylaxis.

Abdomen↗
PubMed2005

Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy.

BACKGROUND: For almost one hundred years abdominoperineal excision has been the standard treatment of choice for rectal cancer. With advances in the techniques for rectal resection and anastomosis, anterior resection with preservation of the sphincter function has become the preferred treatment for rectal cancers, except for those cancers very close to the anal sphincter. The main reason for this has been the conviction that the quality of life for patients with a colostomy after abdominoperineal excision was poorer than for patients undergoing a sphincter-preserving technique. However, patients having sphincter-preserving operations may experience symptoms affecting their quality of life that are different from those with stoma-patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of life in rectal cancer patients with or without permanent colostomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group's specialised register. Abstract books from major gastroenterological and colorectal congresses were searched. Reference lists of the selected articles were scrutinized. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled clinical trials and observational studies in which quality of life was measured in patients with rectal cancer having either abdominoperineal excision or low anterior resection, using a validated quality of life instrument, were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer (JP) checked the titles and abstracts identified from the databases and hand search. Full text copies of all studies of possible relevance were obtained. The reviewer decided which studies met the inclusion criteria. Both reviewers independently extracted data. If information was insufficient the original author was contacted to obtain missing data. Extracted data were crosschecked and discrepancies resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty potential studies were identified. Eleven of these, all non-randomised and representing 1412 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six trials found that people undergoing abdominoperineal excision did not have poorer quality of life measures than patients undergoing anterior resection. One study found that a stoma only slightly affected the person's quality of life. Four studies found that patients receiving abdominoperineal excision had significantly poorer quality of life than after anterior resection. Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis of the included studies was not possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The studies included in this review do not allow firm conclusions as to the question of whether the quality of life of people after anterior resection is superior to that of people after abdominoperineal excision. The included studies challenged the assumption that anterior resection patients fare better.Larger, better designed and executed prospective studies are needed to answer this question.

Colostomy↗
PubMed2005

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: For over a century the presence of bowel content during surgery has been linked to anastomotic leakage. Mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications. This dogma is not based on solid evidence, but on observational data and expert's opinions. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mechanical bowel preparation for morbidity and mortality rates in elective colorectal surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We also searched relevant medical journals, and conference proceedings from major gastroenterological congresses and contacted experts in the field. We used the search strategy described by the Colorectal Cancer Review Group, without limitations for date of publication and language. I SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, clinical trials that compared any strategy in mechanical bowel preparation with no mechanical bowel preparation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by the reviewers and cross-checked. The same reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each trial. Details of the randomisation (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up was recorded. For analysis the Peto odds ratio (OR) was used as defaults. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1592 patients (9 trials), 789 were allocated to mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) and 803 to no preparation (Group B) before elective colorectal surgery. For anastomotic leakage (main outcome) the results were: - Low anterior resection: 9.8% (11 of 112 patients in Group A) compared with 7.5% (9 of 119 patients in Group B); Peto OR 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57 to 3.67 (non-significant); - Colonic surgery: 2.9% (Group A) compared with 1.6% (Group B) ; Peto OR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.68 to 4.75 (non-significant); Overall anastomotic leakage: 6.2% (Group A) compared with 3.2% (Group B); Peto OR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.276 to 3.26 (p=0.003). For the secondary outcome of wound infection the result was: 7.4% (Group A) compared with 5.4% (Group B); Peto OR 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97 - to 2.18 (p=0.07); Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with dubious randomisation, studies published as abstracts only, and studies involving children did not change the overall conclusions AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no convincing evidence that mechanical bowel preparation is associated with reduced rates of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery. On the contrary, there is evidence that this intervention may be associated with an increased rate of anastomotic leakage and wound complications. It is not possible to be conclusion on the latter issue because of the clinical heterogeneity of trial inclusion criteria, methodological inadequacies in trial (in particular, poor reporting of concealment and allocation), potential performance biases, and failure of intention-to-treat analyses. Nevertheless, the dogma that mechanical bowel preparation is necessary before elective colorectal surgery should be reconsidered.

Colorectal Surgery↗
PubMed2005

Pre-operative mechanical bowel cleansing or not? an updated meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient regimen against leakage and infectious complications, after colorectal resections. This dogma is based only on observational data and experts' opinions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library and abstracts from major gastroenterological congresses were searched. No language restrictions were applied. The selection criterion used was randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing any kind of mechanical bowel preparation with no preparation in patients submitted to elective colorectal surgery and where anastomotic leakage, mortality, and wound infection were outcome measurements. Data were independently extracted by the reviewers and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same reviewers. For meta-analysis the Peto-Odds ratio was used. RESULTS: Of 1592 patients (9 RCTs), 789 were allocated to mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) and 803 to no preparation (Group B) before elective colorectal surgery. Anastomotic leakage developed in 48 (6%) of 772 patients in A compared with 25 (3.2%) of 777 patients in B; Peto OR 2.03, 95% (CI: 1.28-3.26; P = 0.003). Wound infection occurred in 59 (7.4%) of 791 patients in A and in 43 (5.4%) of 803 patients in B; Peto OR 1.46, 95% (CI: 0.97-2.18; P = 0.07); Five (1%) of 509 patients died in group in A compared with 3 (0.61%) of 516 patients in group B; Peto OR 1.72, 95% (CI: 0.43-6.95; nonsignificant). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation. On the contrary taking colorectal surgery as a whole, pre-operative bowel cleansing leads to a higher rate of anastomotic leakage. The dogma that mechanical bowel preparation is necessary before elective colorectal surgery has to be reconsidered.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy.

BACKGROUND: For almost one hundred years abdominoperineal excision has been the standard treatment of choice for rectal cancer. With advances in the techniques for rectal resection and anastomosis, anterior resection with preservation of the sphincter function has become the preferred treatment for rectal cancers, except for those cancers very close to the anal sphincter. The main reason for this has been the conviction that the quality of life for patients with a colostomy after abdominoperineal excision was poorer than for patients undergoing a sphincter-preserving technique. However, patients having sphincter-preserving operations may experience symptoms affecting their quality of life that are different from those withstoma-patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of life in rectal cancer patients with or without permanent colostomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group's specialised register. Abstracts books from major gastroenterological and colorectal congresses were searched. Reference lists of the selected articles were scrutinized. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled clinical trials and observational studies in which quality of life was measured in patients with rectal cancer having either abdominoperineal excision or low anterior resection, using a validated quality of life instrument, were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer (JP) checked the titles and abstracts identified from the databases and hand search. Full text copies of all studies of possible relevance were obtained. The reviewer decided which studies met the inclusion criteria. Both reviewers independently extracted data. If information was insufficient the original author was contacted to obtain missing data. Extracted data were crosschecked and discrepancies resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty five potential studies were identified. Eight of these, all non-randomised and representing 620 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Four trials found that people undergoing abdominoperineal excision did not have poorer quality of life measures than patients undergoing anterior resection. One study found that a stoma only slightly affected the persons quality of life. Three studies found that patients receiving abdominoperineal excision had significantly poorer quality of life than after anterior resection. Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis of the included studies was not possible. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The studies included in this review do not allow firm conclusions as to the question of whether the quality of life of people after anterior resection is superior to that of people after abdominoperineal excision. The included studies challenged the assumption that anterior resection patients fare better.Larger, better designed and executed prospective studies are needed to answer this question.

Colostomy↗
PubMed2003

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: For more than a century the presence of bowel content during surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage. Mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient agent against leakage and infections complications. This dogma is not based on solid evidence, but more on observational data and expert's opinions. OBJECTIVES: To determine the security and effectiveness of prophylactic mechanical bowel preparation for morbidity and mortality rates in colorectal surgery. The following hypothesis was tested: "The use of mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery reduces the incidence of postoperative complications". SEARCH STRATEGY: All publications describing mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery was sought through computerized searches of EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library; by hand-searching in relevant medical journals, from major gastroenterological congresses, without limitation for date and language, using the search strategy described by the Colorectal Cancer Review Group. In addition, randomised clinical trials will be searched through personal communication with colleagues and from conference proceedings SELECTION CRITERIA STUDIES: All randomised, clinical trials, that were performed in order to answer the hypothesis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients submitted elective colorectal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Any strategy in mechanical bowel preparation compared with no mechanical bowel preparation. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 1. Anastomosis leakage- stratified for rectum and colon 2. Overall anastomotic leakage SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 3. Mortality 4. Peritonitis 5. Re operation 6. Wound Infection 7 Infectious extra-abdominal complication 8. Non-infection extra-abdominal 9. Overall surgical site infections DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was independently extracted by two reviewers and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two reviewers. Details of the randomisation (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up was recorded. The results of each RCT was summarised in 2 x 2 tables for each outcome. For analysis the Peto-Odds ratio was used as defaults (no statistical heterogeneity was observed) MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1159 patients with anastomosis (6 RCTs), 576 were allocated for mechanical bowel preparation (groups 1) and 583 for no preparation (groups 2) before elective colorectal surgery. Of 1204 patients totally enrolled 595 were in groups 1 and 609 in groups 2. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: 1) Anastomotic leakage - stratified:A) Low anterior resection: 12.5% (6 of 48 patients in 1) compared with 12% (6 of 50 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.17, 95% CI: 0.35 - 3.96 (non-significant) B) Colonic surgery: 1.16% (2 of 172 patients in 1) compared with 0.6% (1 of 166 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.75, 95% CI: 0.18 - 17.02 2) Overall anastomotic leakage: 5.5% (32 of 576 patients in 1) compared with 2.9% (17 of 583 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.09 - 3.43 (P=0.02) SECONDARY OUTCOMES: 3) Mortality: 0.6% (2 of 329 patients in 1) compared with 0% (0 of 326 patients in 2); Peto OR 7.95, 95% CI: 0.49 - 128.34 (non-significant) 4) Peritonitis: 5.1% ( 13 of 254 patients in 1) compared with 2.8% (7 of 252 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.90, 95% CI: 0.78 -4.64) (non significant) 5) Reoperation: 3.3% ( 11 of 329 patients) compared with 2.5% (8 of 326 patients); Peto OR 1.40, 95% CI: 0.56 - 3.49) (non-significant) 6) Wound infection: 7.4% (44 of 595 patients in 1) compared with 5.7% (35 of 609 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.34, 95% CI: 0.85 - 2.13 (non-significant) 7) Infectious extra-abdominal complication: 8.3% ( 14 of 168 patients in 1) compared with 9.4% (15 of 159 patients in 2); Peto OR, 95%: 0.87 (0.41 - 1.87) 8) Non-infection extra-abdominal complication: 8.0% ( 20 of 250 patients in 1) compared with 7.0% (17 of 246 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.61 - 2.32 (non-significant) - 9) Surgical site infection: 9.8% (31 of 325 patients in 1) compared with 8.3% (27 of 322 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.20, 95% CI: 0.70 - 2.05 (non-significant) - REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results failed to support the hypothesis that bowel preparation reduces anastomotic leak rates and other complications. There was no a priori hypothesis that bowel preparation may increase anastomotic leak rates, so this was not stated. Thus, the routine use of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery is questioned.

Colorectal Surgery↗
PubMed2001

Heparins and mechanical methods for thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery implies higher risk of postoperative thromboembolic complications as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) than general surgery. The best prophylaxis in general surgery is heparin and graded compression stockings. No systematic review on combination prophylaxis or on thrombosis prophylaxis in colorectal surgery has been published. OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of postoperative thromboembolism after colorectal surgery using prophylactic methods focussing on heparins and mechanical methods alone and in combinations. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE back to 1970. Abstract books from major congresses were handsearched as were reference lists from previously performed reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCT or CCT comparing prophylactic interventions and/or placebo. Outcomes were ascending venography, 125 I-fibrinogen uptake test, ultrasound methods, pulmonary scintigraphy. Studies, using thermographic methods, other isotopic methods, plethysmographic methods, and purely clinical methods as the only diagnostic measure were excluded. 558 studies were identified - 477 were excluded. Only 3 of the identified studies focused exclusively on colorectal surgery. Studies of general surgery contain considerable numbers of colorectal patients. The authors of 66 studies in general and/or abdominal surgery were contacted for retrieving the results from the colorectal patients. Answers were received from very few. 19 studies entered this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All studies and all data extraction were performed independently by at least two of the authors. Outcome was deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Analysis of bleeding complications were unfeasible. 12 meaningful outcomes were analysed by means of the fixed effects model with Peto Odds Ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Heparins versus no treatment: Any kind of heparincompared to no treatment or placebo (comparison 07.03, 11 studies). Heparin is better in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio at 0.32 (95% Confidence Interval 0.20-0.53) Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin (comparison 08.03, 4 studies). The two treatments were found equally effective in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio 1.01 (95% Confidence Interval 0.67-1.52). Mechanical methods (comparison 10.3, 2 studies). The combination of graded compression stockings and LDH is better than LDH alone in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio at 4.17 (95% Confidence Interval 1.37-12.70). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The optimal prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is the combination of graduated compression stockings and low-dose unfractionated heparin. The unfractionated heparin can be replaced with low molecular weight heparin.

Anticoagulants↗
PubMed2001

Survey of the use of thromboprophylaxis in laparoscopic surgery in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the current use of thromboprophylaxis for laparoscopic surgery in Denmark. METHODS: Postal questionnaires were sent to all Danish surgical departments that performed laparoscopic surgery according to the National Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Database. RESULTS: There was a written protocol for thromboprophylaxis in 93 per cent of the responding departments. In 37 per cent thromboprophylaxis was used for all patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery; only 7 per cent used thromboprophylaxis sporadically. All departments used low molecular weight heparin, 74 per cent in combination with graduated compression stockings. The criteria for using thromboprophylaxis varied greatly; in many departments conversion of the procedure to an open operation was not considered a criterion. Some 20 per cent of the departments reported previous thromboembolic complications following laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSION: Despite the widespread use of thromboprophylaxis, symptomatic thromboembolic complications were reported from several departments. Further studies are needed to determine whether laparoscopic surgery should be considered a high-risk procedure.

Anticoagulants↗
PubMed2001

The potential role of new therapies in deep-vein thrombosis prophylaxis.

The value of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increasingly accepted in most surgical specialties, although the potential reduction in fatal pulmonary embolism has recently been questioned. The burden of VTE in hospital patients nevertheless remains high, partly attributable to underuse of thromboprophylaxis and partly attributable to occurrence of VTE in high-risk patients because recommended antithrombotic therapies fail to provide full protection. Improved physician education has been shown to increase the application of antithrombotic measures, and research efforts are focused on developing novel antithrombotic agents with greater efficacy and safety in clinical use. Several novel indirect and direct thrombin inhibitors have been investigated. The heparinoid danaparoid has shown superiority over unfractionated heparin in several indications, but only the recombinant hirudin, desirudin, has exhibited greater efficacy than low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in thromboprophylaxis for patients undergoing elective hip-replacement surgery, without increasing the risk of bleeding. Three large-scale clinical trials have shown desirudin to be the most effective thromboprophylactic agent currently available in elective hip-replacement surgery; this agent has now been licensed for use in orthopedic surgery. Research is ongoing into the feasibility of still more effective and convenient therapies, such as oral antithrombins.

Fibrinolytic Agents↗
PubMed2000

New therapeutic options in DVT prophylaxis.

In the absence of prophylaxis, elective orthopedic surgery is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolic events that are responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite the publication of articles questioning the significance of fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) following elective hip replacement, recent reports support the need for effective thromboprophylaxis in this indication. These reports also provide evidence of a significant reduction in fatal PE and overall mortality provided by treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), compared with unfractionated heparin. Even with the most effective prophylaxis currently available, however, deep vein thrombosis still develops in a minority of high-risk patients, indicating a need for improved therapies. Desirudin, a novel recombinant hirudin and direct thrombin inhibitor, has been shown to provide more effective prophylaxis than the most widely used LMWH, enoxaparin, in orthopedic surgery patients with multiple thromboembolic risk factors. This benefit was not associated with any increase in bleeding. Regional anesthesia and use of graduated compression stockings may provide additional independent reductions in thromboembolic risk in elective orthopedic surgery.

Anesthesia, Conduction↗