4.5 Article

Systematic review of aspirin for thromboprophylaxis in modern elective total hip and knee arthroplasty

期刊

BONE & JOINT JOURNAL
卷 98B, 期 8, 页码 1056-1061

出版社

BRITISH EDITORIAL SOC BONE & JOINT SURGERY
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.36957

关键词

-

资金

  1. Orthopeadic Research Kent, Surrey and Sussex (ORKSS)
  2. South West Thames

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims There is uncertainty regarding the optimal means of thromboprophylaxis following total hip and knee arthroplasty ( THA, TKA). This systematic review presents the evidence for acetylsalicylic acid ( aspirin) as a thromboprophylactic agent in THA and TKA and compares it with other chemoprophylactic agents. Materials and Methods A search of literature published between 2004 and 2014 was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 13 studies were eligible for inclusion. Results Evidence from one good quality randomised controlled trial ( RCT) showed no difference in rates of venous thrombo-embolism ( VTE) in patients given aspirin or low molecular weight heparin ( LMWH) following TKA. There was insufficient evidence from trials with moderate to severe risk of bias being present to suggest aspirin is more or less effective than LMWH, warfarin or dabigatran for the prevention of VTE in TKA or THA. Compared with aspirin, rates of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis ( DVT) in TKA may be reduced with rivaroxaban but insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate an effect on incidence of symptomatic DVT. Compared with aspirin there is evidence of more wound complications following THA and TKA with dabigatran and in TKA with rivaroxaban. Some studies highlighted concerns over bleeding complications and efficacy of aspirin. Conclusion The results suggest aspirin may be considered a suitable alternative to other thromboprophylactic agents following THA and TKA. Further investigation is required to fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of aspirin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据