Koya Madhusudan P, Manoharan Murugesan, Kim Sandy S, Soloway Mark S
Department of Urology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33101, USA.
BJU Int. 2005 Nov;96(7):1019-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05783.x.
To review the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and evaluate the need for heparinoid prophylaxis as opposed to mechanical compression devices after RRP.
RRP is classified as a category 1 (high risk) procedure for VTE by the American College of Chest Physicians and several international guidelines recommend subcutaneous heparinoids as the preferred prophylaxis. However, this regimen may be associated with a greater risk of bleeding. We have not used heparinoid prophylaxis but place a mechanical compression device for prophylaxis of VTE, and report our clinical experience over a 12-year period. Between 1992 and 2004, all RRPs carried out by one surgeon (M.S.S.) at our centre were retrospectively reviewed after obtaining institutional review board approval. The protocol for prophylaxis of VTE consisted of compression stockings and a sequential compression device from the time of entry into the operating room until complete ambulation (we encourage early ambulation). Patients were evaluated for VTE if they developed any clinical signs or symptoms. Patients were followed at 7 days, 6 weeks and 3 months after RRP in the first year and 6-monthly thereafter. All relevant clinical data and complications were entered in a database.
In all there were 1364 RRPs; the mean (sd) age of the patients was 61 (7) years and the mean follow-up 44 (38) months. All patients had a mechanical compression device and ambulated on the first day after surgery. None received heparinoid prophylaxis. Three VTE events were identified (0.21%); two patients had a lower limb VTE and one an upper limb VTE. All were successfully treated with anticoagulation. No patient had a documented pulmonary embolus and none died from VTE. There was one death after RRP, from myocardial infarction.
The incidence of VTE after RRP is low, possibly related to the use of a mechanical compression device and early aggressive mobilization. Despite the recommendations by some, we feel that routine heparinoid prophylaxis is questionable.
回顾耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术(RRP)后静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)的发生率,并评估RRP后使用类肝素预防与使用机械压迫装置预防相比的必要性。
美国胸科医师学会将RRP归类为VTE的1类(高风险)手术,多项国际指南推荐皮下注射类肝素作为首选预防措施。然而,该方案可能会增加出血风险。我们未使用类肝素预防,而是放置机械压迫装置预防VTE,并报告我们12年期间的临床经验。1992年至2004年,在获得机构审查委员会批准后,对我们中心由一位外科医生(M.S.S.)实施的所有RRP进行了回顾性研究。VTE预防方案包括从进入手术室至完全下床活动(我们鼓励早期下床活动)期间使用弹力袜和序贯压迫装置。如果患者出现任何临床体征或症状,则对其进行VTE评估。RRP术后第1年在7天、6周和3个月进行随访,此后每6个月随访一次。所有相关临床数据和并发症均录入数据库。
共有1364例RRP;患者的平均(标准差)年龄为61(7)岁,平均随访时间为44(38)个月。所有患者均使用了机械压迫装置,并于术后第1天下床活动。无一例接受类肝素预防。发现3例VTE事件(0.21%);2例患者发生下肢VTE,1例发生上肢VTE。所有患者均通过抗凝治疗成功治愈。无患者记录有肺栓塞,也无患者死于VTE。RRP术后有1例患者死于心肌梗死。
RRP后VTE的发生率较低,可能与使用机械压迫装置和早期积极活动有关。尽管有一些建议,但我们认为常规使用类肝素预防存在疑问。