• Sandra O'Connell, Khalid Bashar, Barry J Broderick, James Sheehan, Fabio Quondamatteo, Stewart R Walsh, Gearoid ÓLaighin, and Leo R Quinlan.
• *Physiology, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland †Electrical & Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering & Informatics, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland ‡Department of Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland §National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland ¶Galway Clinic, Doughiska, Galway, Ireland ||Skin and ECM Research Group, Anatomy, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland **Department of Surgery, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
• Ann. Surg. 2016 May 1; 263 (5): 888-9.

ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to carry out an up-to-date evaluation on the use of compression devices as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis methods in orthopedic and neurological patients.Summary Of Background DataThere is an increased risk of DVT with surgery, particularly in patients who are not expected to mobilize soon after their procedures, such as orthopedic and neurosurgical patients. Compression devices are often employed for DVT prophylaxis in these patients. However, the true efficacy of these devices and the standardization of use with these devices are yet to be established.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane library electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting on the use of compression devices for DVT prevention.ResultsNine studies were included for review and meta-analysis. Use of an intermittent pneumatic compression device alone is neither superior nor inferior to chemoprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn the absence of large randomized multicenter trials comparing the use of intermittent pneumatic compression or chemoprophylaxis alone to a combination of both treatments, the current evidence supports the use of a combined approach in high-risk surgical patients.

6 keywords...

hide…