Long-term consequences of pelvic trauma patients with thromboembolic disease treated with inferior vena caval filters

Perioperative management of acetabular and pelvic fractures: evidence-based recommendations

PURPOSE

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons does not currently provide clinical practice guidelines for management of PAF. Accordingly, this article aims to review and consolidate the relevant historical and recent literature in important topics pertaining to perioperative management of PAF.

METHODS

A thorough literature review using PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases was performed to assess preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative management of PAF fracture. Topics reviewed included: time from injury to definitive fixation, the role of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF), tranexamic acid (TXA) use, intraopoperative cell salvage, incisional negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), intraoperative antibiotic powder use, heterotopic ossification prophylaxis, and pre- and postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of 126 articles pertaining to the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative management of PAF were reviewed. Articles reviewed by topic include 13 articles pertaining to time to fixation, 23 on IVCF use, 14 on VTE prophylaxis, 20 on TXA use, 10 on cell salvage, 10 on iNPWT 14 on intraoperative antibiotic powder and 20 on HO prophylaxis. An additional eight articles were reviewed to describe background information. Five articles provided information for two or more treatment modalities and were therefore included in multiple categories when tabulating the number of articles reviewed per topic.

CONCLUSION

The literature supports the use of radiation therapy for HO prophylaxis, early (< 5 days from injury) surgical intervention and the routine use of intraoperative TXA. The literature does not support the routine use of iNPWT or IVCF. There is inadequate information to make a recommendation regarding the use of cell salvage and wound infiltration with antibiotic powder. While the routine use of chemical VTE prophylaxis is recommended, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the optimal agent and duration of therapy.

The application of inferior vena cava filters in orthopaedics and current research advances

Deep vein thrombosis is a common clinical peripheral vascular disease that occurs frequently in orthopaedic patients and may lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) if the thrombus is dislodged. pulmonary embolism can be prevented by placing an inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) to intercept the dislodged thrombus. Thus, IVCFs play an important role in orthopaedics. However, the occurrence of complications after inferior vena cava filter placement, particularly recurrent thromboembolism, makes it necessary to carefully assess the risk-benefit of filter placement. There is no accepted statement as to whether IVCF should be placed in orthopaedic patients. Based on the problems currently displayed in the use of IVCFs, an ideal IVCF is proposed that does not affect the vessel wall and haemodynamics and intercepts thrombi well. The biodegradable filters that currently exist come close to the description of an ideal filter that can reduce the occurrence of various complications. Currently available biodegradable IVCFs consist of various organic polymeric materials. Biodegradable metals have shown good performance in making biodegradable IVCFs. However, among the available experimental studies on degradable filters, there are no experimental studies on filters made of degradable metals. This article reviews the use of IVCFs in orthopaedics, the current status of filters and the progress of research into biodegradable vena cava filters and suggests possible future developments based on the published literature by an electronic search of PubMed and Medline databases for articles related to IVCFs searchable by October 2022 and a manual search for citations to relevant studies.

Thromboembolic events in pelvic and acetabulum fractures: a systematic review of the current literature on incidence, screening, and thromboprophylaxis

PURPOSE

Rates of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) as high as 41% deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were reported in association with pelvic and acetabular fractures (PAFs). There is no clear consensus on VTE prophylaxis for PAFs. Extracting evidence-based guidelines is key to overcome this challenging complication. The aims of this review are (A) to highlight the incidence of VTEs in PAFs, (B) to examine the screening and prophylaxis methods available in the current literature, and (C) direct future creation of a best practice protocol to reduce the risk of VTE in PAFs.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE databases, and the Cochrane library. MESH terms were used to identify studies pertinent to VTE in PAFs, including incidence, prophylaxis, and screening.

RESULTS

In total, 28 studies were identified and grouped into four categories including incidence, screening, prophylaxis, and the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). Incidence of VTE ranged from 0.21 to 41% for DVT and 0 to 21.7% for PE. Nine studies screened 1360 patients using different imaging modalities. Ten articles, 2836 patients, examined different thromboprophylaxis protocols. Two out of three studies investigating the use of IVCF showed significant reduction of the rates of PE.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of VTE in PAF varies significantly with different protocols. The current literature shows that screening is still controversial. The combination of chemical and mechanical prophylaxis starting at 24 hours from the injury would provide the best protection. Guidelines were extracted; however, higher level multicenter studies are still required to guide future protocols.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filter to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with fractures and deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities: a single-center experience

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of inserting a retrievable inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with bone fractures and acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) before major orthopedic surgery.

Methods

Clinical data of patients with fractures and acute DVT who underwent IVCF insertion were analyzed. The patients were divided into above-knee DVT (AKDVT), popliteal vein thrombosis (PVT), and below-knee DVT (BKDVT) groups.

Results

An IVCF was successfully implanted in 964 patients, among whom 929 were followed up (335, 470, and 124 in AKDVT, PVT, and BKDVT groups, respectively). There was no significant difference in the incidence of filter thrombosis among the groups (11.04%, 11.70%, and 8.06%, respectively). No symptomatic PE occurred during follow-up. The mean filter indwelling time was 18.4 ± 4.3 days, and the total filter removal rate was 76.87%. There was no significant difference in the rate of filter implantation, retrieval, complications, or mortality among the groups.

Conclusions

Retrievable filters can effectively prevent PE before orthopedic surgery in patients with fractures and acute DVT of the lower limbs. AKDVT more readily forms a ≥1-cm thrombus in the IVCF than does BKDVT, and PVT more readily forms a <1-cm thrombus than does AKDVT.

Evaluation of nonpermanent inferior vena cava filter placement in patients with deep venous thrombosis after lower extremity fracture: A single-center retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate nonpermanent inferior vena cava (IVC) filter in the prevention of perioperative pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients of lower extremity and/or pelvic bone fracture with deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

METHODS

Lower extremity or pelvic bone fracture patients with lower extremity DVT hospitalized in our hospital from January 2003 to October 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Data was analyzed for age, gender, position of fracture, position of proximal of thrombosis, indications of placement, complications, retrieval rate, and rate of entrapped filter clot. Patients who underwent IVC filter placement were selected as the filter group. The patients who did not perform IVC filter placement after 2008 and the cases between January 2003 and December 2007 were selected as control group 1 and control group 2, respectively. The incidence of perioperative symptomatic PE and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2763 cases complicated with DVT underwent orthopedic surgery between January 2003 and October 2014. 823 nonpermanent filters were inserted. All filters were successfully deployed with no major complications. After a mean 14.2 days indwelling time, all of temporary filters were removed. Retrieval was attempted in 556 patients with retrievable filters and was successful in 545 (98%); mean indwelling time was 16.3 days. The total retrieval rate was 90%. The incidence of PE in the filter group was significantly lower compared with the two control groups. Among the patients who received chemical anticoagulant therapy, the incidence of PE in filter group, control group 1 and control group 2 were 0.14%, 1.60% and 2.10%, respectively. The incidence of PE in filter group was also significant lower compared with control groups.

CONCLUSION

Nonpermanent IVC filter placement seems like to be a safe and effective method for preventing perioperative symptomatic and fatal PE in bone fracture patients with DVT in the present retrospective study.

Clinical outcomes and causes of death in Japanese patients with long-term inferior vena cava filter implants and deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We assessed the causes of death and efficacy of permanent inferior vena cava (IVC) filters for preventing new pulmonary embolisms (PE) in Japanese deep vein thrombosis (DVT) patients with or without PE.

METHODS AND SUBJECTS

We studied the clinical outcomes during the follow-up period of 1 day to 9 years (median: 18 months; mean: 28 months) in 66 of 72 consecutive patients (44 with acute PE, 27 with intrapelvic DVT, and 1 with floating femoral vein thrombosis). Fifty of 66 patients received anticoagulant therapy after the filter placement.

RESULTS

Five patients died within 1 month (median 9 days) after the filter placement: three from recurrence of PE, one from cancer, and one from sepsis. Two of the three patients with recurrence of PE had preexisting intracardiac thrombi in the right atrium or main pulmonary artery before filter implantation. Ten patients died from the underlying disease (cancer: 7; brain hemorrhage: 1; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: 1; pneumonia: 1) over 1 month after the filter placement (median follow-up period: 21 months). No new symptomatic PE recurrence was observed over 1 month after the filter placement. The 61 patients with long-term follow-up had no deterioration of DVT, and all the 31 patients who underwent multi-slice computed tomography showed no PE recurrence or filter thrombus occlusion, fracture, or migration.

CONCLUSIONS

Underlying diseases and preexisting intracardiac thrombi may be the determining factors for the prognosis of DVT patients. Permanent IVC filters with anticoagulant therapy may be effective for preventing death from new PE in Japanese DVT patients.

Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in trauma patients

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are known collectively as venous thromboembolism (VTE). Venous thromboembolic events are common and potentially life-threatening complications following trauma with an incidence of 5 to 63%. DVT prophylaxis is essential in the management of trauma patients. Currently, the optimal VTE prophylaxis strategy for trauma patients is unknown. Traditionally, pelvic and lower extremity fractures, head injury, and prolonged immobilization have been considered risk factors for VTE; however it is unclear which combination of risk factors defines a high-risk group. Modalities available for trauma patient thromboprophylaxis are classified into pharmacologic anticoagulation, mechanical prophylaxis, and inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. The available pharmacologic agents include low-dose heparin (LDH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and factor Xa inhibitors. Mechanical prophylaxis methods include graduated compression stockings (GCSs), pneumatic compression devices (PCDs), and A-V foot pumps. IVCs are traditionally used in high risk patients in whom pharmacological prophylaxis is contraindicated. Both EAST and ACCP guidelines recommend primary use of LMWHs in trauma patients; however there are still controversies regarding the definitive VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients. Large randomized prospective clinical studies would be required to provide level I evidence to define the optimal VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients.