The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 27, Issue 2 , Pages 173-179, February 2012

The Australian Arthroplasty Thromboprophylaxis Survey

  • Robert B. Molnar, MBBS, BSc(Med)

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Robert Molnar, MBBS, BSc(Med), Blue Shield Medical Centre, Suite 5, 19 Kensington Street, Sydney NSW 2217, Australia.
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia
    • St George Clinical School, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia
  • ,
  • Deanne E. Jenkin, BSc

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  • ,
  • Michael J. Millar, MBBS (Hons), MPhil

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  • ,
  • David Campbell, MBBS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Wakefield Orthopaedic Clinic, Adelaide, Australia
  • ,
  • Ian A. Harris, MBBS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia
    • South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia
    • Whitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia

Received 4 November 2010; accepted 4 May 2011. published online 13 July 2011.

Abstract 

Previous surveys of orthopedic surgeons have shown considerable variation in thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism after joint arthroplasty. This survey aimed to determine the current practice among Australian orthopedic surgeons. A questionnaire regarding the duration, reasons, and methods of chemical and mechanical prophylaxis for hip and knee arthroplasty patients was sent to the 1082 surgeons identified; 593 (55%) members completed the questionnaire. The survey revealed that 98% of surgeons used chemical thromboprophylaxis, mainly low-molecular-weight heparin (84% hip and 79% knee). Those who use low-molecular-weight heparin were more likely to prescribe anticoagulants in fear of litigation (19.2% vs 10.1%, P = .04) and more likely to rely on protocols or guidelines (32.2% vs 17.2%, P = .004) instead of basing their decision on their own reading (52.4% vs 71.3%, P = .001). Most orthopedic surgeons in our survey have indicated that they would welcome guidelines from their association or college regarding thromboprophylaxis in arthroplasty.

Keywords: total joint replacement, thromboprophylaxis, venous thromboembolism, anticoagulants

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 The Conflict of Interest statement associated with this article can be found at doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.05.003.

PII: S0883-5403(11)00234-8

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.05.003

The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 27, Issue 2 , Pages 173-179, February 2012