In order to investigate the influence of the interpretation of a postoperative venography, used as the scientific tool in a thromboprophylactic trial, twelve different evaluations of the same venography have been compared. Two hundred and nineteen patients, undergoing total hip replacement, fulfilled a randomized trial evaluating two different prophylactic regimens. Bilateral venography was performed 7-11 days after surgery, and the result of venography was defined as with or without deep venous thrombosis (DVT), irrespective of the location of a thrombus. The venograms were evaluated five times by different interpreters, and the criteria for the presence of DVT were recorded whether or not thrombi in minor veins were present. The incidences of DVT in the two prophylactic groups varied from 2.7 to 20.3% and from 13.5 to 34.2%, respectively, according to the diagnostic criteria. However, the risk reduction between the two groups was almost constant, no matter which type of evaluation was applied (7.9-15.1 %), and was statistically significant at the 5 % level in all but 4 of the 12 evaluations. It is concluded that despite uniformity in patient selection, the incidence of DVT is not uniform, even though it is stated that venography is used as the end point. The obvious interobserver variation did not change the conclusion when two regimens are compared in a specific randomized study.

Keywords:
Venography, Deep venous thrombosis, prophylaxis, Observer variation, Surgery
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1992 S. Karger AG, Basel
1992
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.