LOGIN
Pulsatile vs standard compression: no significant difference against deep vein thrombosis
September 2014
Pulsatile vs standard compression: no significant difference against deep vein thrombosis
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A
Mechanical prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after pelvic and acetabular fractures
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jul;83-A(7):1047-51Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here
Synopsis
107 patients with pelvic or acetabular fractures requiring internal fixation were randomized to receive prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis with either a thigh-calf low-pressure sequential-compression device (Group A) or a calf-foot high-pressure pulsatile-compression pump (Group B). Patients were assessed for the development of deep vein thrombosis (by duplex ultrasonography and magnetic res...
To view the full content, login to your account,
or start your 30-day FREE Trial today.
FREE TRIAL
LOGIN
Forgot Password?
Explore some of our unlocked ACE Reports below!
Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature
Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.
Continue
Join the Conversation
Please Login or Join to leave comments.