Objective
To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of the use of foot pump versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR).
Summary of background data
The use of chemoprophylactic agents in TKR and THR has been shown to result in increased complications like bleeding and wound drainage.
Methods
Relevant publications indexed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embas, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CNKI, and VIPI were identified. Appropriate articles identified from the reference lists of the above searches were also reviewed.
Results
No significant difference in the rate of distal in the lower extremity was observed between the 2 groups (OR: 0.99; CI: 0.61–1.61; Z = 0.03; P = 0.97). No significant difference in the rate of proximal DVT in the lower extremity was observed between 2 groups (OR: 1.60, CI: 0.85–3.03, Z = 1.44, P = 0.15). No significant difference in the rate of PE was observed between 2 groups (OR 3.84, CI: 0.42 to 34.80, Z = 1.20, P = 0.23). But we found that postoperative drainage in foot pump group was less than that in LMWH group (OR -68.93, CI: −73.81 to −64.05, Z = 27.68, P < 0.00001), and oozing in foot pump group was less than that in LMWH group (OR: 0.21; CI: 0.10–0.47; Z = 3.86, P = 0.0001).
Conclusion
The foot pump is a suitable alternative for TKR and THR patients in preventing DVT and PE, and can get less postoperative drainage and oozing side effects that are associated with LWMH.
A randomised comparison of a foot pump and low-molecular-weight heparin in the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total knee replacement
