You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

11 June 2023

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in Post-Prostatectomy Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Urology, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea SA6 6NL, UK
2
Department of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London W6 8RF, UK
3
School of Medicine, Centre for Medical Engineering and Technology, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK
4
Urological Surgery Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
J. Clin. Med.2023, 12(12), 3979;https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123979
This article belongs to the Section Nephrology & Urology
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the recommended treatments to achieve oncological outcomes in localized prostate cancer. However, a radical prostatectomy is a major abdominopelvic surgery. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a well-known complication associated with surgical procedures, including RP. There is a lack of consensus regarding VTE prophylaxis in urological procedures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate different aspects of VTE in post-radical prostatectomy patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant data were extracted. The primary aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis (wherever possible) of VTE occurrence in post-RP patients in relation to surgical approach, pelvic lymph node dissection, and type of prophylaxis (mechanical or combined prophylaxis). The secondary aim was to investigate the incidence and other risk factors of VTE in post-RP patients. A total of 16 studies were included for quantitative analysis. Statistical methods for analysis included the DerSimonian–Laird random effects. We were able to conclude that the overall incidence of VTE in post-radical prostatectomy is 1% (95% CI) and minimally invasive procedures (MIS), including laparoscopic, as well as robotic procedures for radical prostatectomy and RP without pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), are associated with less risk of developing VTE. Additional pharmacological prophylaxis to mechanical methods may not be necessary in all cases and should be considered in high-risk patients only.

1. Introduction

Urological cancer surgical procedures have evolved remarkably over the years. The open surgical methods have now largely been replaced by endoscopic or minimally invasive procedures including laparoscopy and robot-assisted methods. Perioperative venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), represents a serious and potentially fatal complication after urological cancer surgeries [1,2]. DVT incidence, without prophylaxis, has been estimated to occur among 10–40% of medical and general surgical patients [3]. PE results in approximately 10% of hospital deaths—the most common cause of inpatient deaths [4]. Furthermore, VTE accounts for the most common preventable cause of hospital-related deaths [5,6,7]. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data revealed a 2.5-fold increased risk of VTE within 30 days in abdominal procedures compared to other procedures, such as breast surgery [8]. One of the most common abdominal urological cancer surgeries is radical prostatectomy (RP), performed for prostate cancer (PCa), which also evolved from open to robotic-assisted surgery. Ultrasound evaluation of VTE occurrence in post-RP patients is estimated at 20% [9].
Thromboprophylaxis helps in reducing morbidity and mortality in surgical patients, using either mechanical methods to promote venous outflow from the legs, or pharmacological prophylaxis (PP) in the form of antithrombotic drugs [10]. The efficacy of thromboprophylaxis in decreasing the incidence of venous thromboembolic events has been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials [11]. Similarly, meta-analyses by various specialties looking into VTE prophylaxis in abdomen/pelvic surgeries concluded that anticoagulants, such as low molecular weight heparins (LMWH), decrease the relative risk of VTE by approximately 50%. However, LMWH administration also increases the relative risk of major bleeding by approximately 50% [12,13]. Regarding prophylaxis after RP, there is a lack of high-quality evidence or standard practice across the globe. In the UK, 98% of patients receive PP after RP (which we also observed in our study), while only 17.8% receive PP after RP in the USA [11,14]. One US study found that 30% of patients post-RP received no VTE prophylaxis [14].
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate different aspects of VTE in post-RP patients. The primary aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis (wherever possible) of overall VTE occurrence in post-RP patients, as well as VTE occurrence in relation to surgical approach, pelvic lymph node dissection, and type of prophylaxis (mechanical or combined prophylaxis). The secondary aim was to investigate the impact of other risk factors of VTE in post-RP patients.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

This systematic review is registered with the PROSPERO International Registry (CRD42022364222).

2.2. Evidence Acquisition

The inclusion criteria for studies included the following:
  • Population: male patients, prostatectomy for prostate cancer;
  • Intervention: pharmacological/combined prophylaxis (PP) for VTE;
  • Comparator/control: no prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis for VTE.
The exclusion criteria for studies included the following:
  • Population: prostatectomy for non-prostate cancer or part of other surgery, such as cystoprostatectomy.
  • Intervention: if the interventions are ill-defined or structural methods are inadequate;
  • Comparator/control: studies that lacked proper grouping into control, and intervention;
  • Study design: studies that did not fulfill the above criterion and lacked any defined outcomes.

2.3. Outcome Measures

  • Primary outcomes: VTE occurrence with
    • Overall incidence of VTE in post-RP Patients;
    • Surgical approach: open, minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy);
    • Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND);
    • Prophylaxis (no prophylaxis, mechanical only, pharmacological only, combined).
  • Secondary outcomes:
Risk factors for VTE in post-RP patients include age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and personal or family history of VTE.

2.4. Search Methods

We followed the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-2020 protocol, for this systematic review [15]. The PRISMA Checklist for this review is shown in Supplementary Table S1. An electronic search was carried out into MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library with results from Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). There was no date or language limit. Search terms included ‘Prostatectomy’, ‘Radical’, ‘Cancer’, ‘Venous thromboembolism’, ‘Deep Vein Thrombosis’, ‘Pulmonary Embolism’, ‘Prophylaxis’, ‘Pharmacological’, ‘Mechanical’, and ‘surgical procedures.’ Boolean operators (‘And’/‘Or’) were used. The search strategy is attached as Supplementary Table S2. The search was performed on 21 July 2022.

2.5. Study Selection

Rayyan software (a free web tool designed to help researchers speed up the process of screening and selecting studies) was used to aid in the process of duplicate removal and initial screening, and to facilitate author collaboration. After deleting duplicates, following the inclusion and exclusion criterion, studies were shortlisted. Full-text papers of the shortlisted studies were reviewed by the SQ3R (Survey, Question, read, recite, review) technique. The process of reviewing studies was completed independently by three authors (M.W, A.M, S.Mu, J.A). In case of any disagreements, the discussion was carried out with the rest of the authors (S.Ma, G.N, B.S) to reach a consensus.

2.6. Data Extraction

The data was initially divided into two parts. The first part consisted of a detailed description of all the studies included. The second part consisted of grouping data into columns—the number of patients, type of surgical approach procedure, pelvic lymph node dissection, post-op VTE prophylaxis (duration/type of medication), and additional VTE (mechanical). Data extraction was performed by two authors independently (M.W, A.M).

2.7. Quality Assessment

For quality assessment of the studies included, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used [16].

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was carried out in three parts:
a
Statistical evaluation of overall VTE occurrence.
The meta-analysis pooled together the results from the different studies, calculating the overall percentage of patients in which the outcomes occurred. Due to the rare occurrence of the outcomes, the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation was performed before analysis. This was used to stabilize the variances when the proportions were close to zero, and a normal approximation to the binomial distribution did not hold.
The DerSimonian–Laird random-effects method was used for the analysis, regardless of the degree of heterogeneity between the study results. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed based on the significance of the between-study heterogeneity and on the size of the I2 value. Substantial heterogeneity was assumed if the I2 value was above 50%.
b
Statistical evaluation of VTE occurrence depending on the type of surgical procedure (Open/Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS)) and whether PLND was performed or not.
Meta-analysis methods were used to pool together the within-study differences in the outcome of different procedures. The outcome of interest was the occurrence of VTE, which was binary in nature. Differences between procedures were expressed as a relative risk. The DerSimonian–Laird random-effects method was used for the analysis as mentioned earlier.
Data was collected from a series of studies. However, not all studies collected data from more than one type of procedure, and thus a comparison between procedures was based on data from a more limited number of studies. The data collected enabled two different comparisons to be made:
  • MIS procedures vs. open procedures;
  • Procedures using PLND vs. procedures without PLND.
c
Statistical Evaluation of VTE occurrence depending on the method of prophylaxis used (mechanical or combined).
The systematic review found only two studies that collected data on both methods and that could be used in a within-study comparison. However, additional studies collected data on either one method or the other. To be able to include all studies in the analysis, a within-study comparison was not performed. Instead, the occurrence of VTE was pooled separately for the mechanical and combined methods. The difference in VTE occurrence between methods was assessed based on the significance of the between-group heterogeneity. Similar statistical methods were used as previously described for overall VTE occurrence.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection Results

In the initial search, 394 studies were identified. A total of 18 were removed (including 15 duplicates). In total, 376 studies were screened. After the title and abstract review, 302 studies were excluded. Full-text retrieval was sought for 74 studies; however, we could retrieve only 72. Out of 72 studies, 41 studies were excluded after a full-text review. The remaining 31studies were scrutinized for eligibility criteria, and in the end, 16 studies were included in the systematic review. The PRISMA-2020 flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 Flow diagram.

3.2. Quality Assessment Results

The quality assessment results of the included studies are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.

3.3. Study Characteristics

All sixteen studies included are summarized in Table 2, highlighting the study type, period of study, main characteristics/methodology, and conclusions.
Table 2. Study characteristics.

3.4. Clinical-Pathological Results

The clinical-pathological results are summarized in Supplementary Table S3. The main highlight is that surgery was usually performed for T2-stage prostate cancer (54%).

3.5. Demographics and VTE Risk Factors

The VTE risk factors including age, BMI, personal history of VTE, as well as family VTE, are summarized with remarks in Table 3. The age was described in 13 studies, with the mean age of patients undergoing surgery being 64 years (60–72 years). Six studies provided details about BMI. The average BMI was 27.6 kg/m2. Personal history of VTE had been investigated by three studies, with the average being 2.3% and family history of VTE in one study, 4.0%. Three studies investigated smoking and were found in 30% of patients. Lastly, only one study investigated Caprini’s score in their cohort of patients.
Table 3. Demographics and VTE risk factors.

3.6. Surgical Procedure Results

Out of 16 studies, 15 have mentioned detailed surgical approaches offered for radical prostatectomy (Open/Laparoscopic/Robotic). In total, 11 studies have described the results of pelvic lymph node dissection in their cohort of patients. Results are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Details of surgical procedures.

3.7. Thromboprophylaxis and VTE Episodes

The results of different types of thromboprophylaxis, as well as the number of VTE episodes, are provided in Table 5. Fourteen studies have provided details about VTE prophylaxis (95,052 patients). Of these patients, 22.4% did not receive any form of VTE prophylaxis. Nearly half (41.8%) of patients received mechanical prophylaxis followed by 30% of patients receiving combined (mechanical, as well as pharmacological) prophylaxis, and lastly, 5.7% of patients received only pharmacological prophylaxis (Figure 2).
Table 5. Thromboprophylaxis and VTE episodes.
Figure 2. VTE Prophylaxis distribution in post-RP patients.

3.8. Surgical Approaches and VTE Episodes

Total VTE episodes in open RP were discussed in 11 studies with a mean VTE incidence of 1.5%. Eight studies discussed VTE episodes in MIS having a mean incidence of 0.9%. Eight studies investigated DVT incidence in post-RP patients, accounting for 0.3%. Thirteen studies described PE incidence in post-RP patients and had a mean value of 1.5%. These results are tabulated in Table 6.
Table 6. Surgical approach and VTE incidence.

3.9. Duration and Timing of Thromboprophylaxis

In most studies, mechanical prophylaxis was initiated in patients prior to surgery and continued till patient discharge from the hospital. In some studies, patients were also encouraged to ambulate on discharge [19].
However, there is a lack of uniformity in the case of PP in terms of both start and duration. Some studies started PP before surgery and continued every 8 hours till discharge from the hospital [17]. Others emphasized starting PP after surgery and continuing after for 4 weeks [18].

3.10. Statistical Results

a
Statistical outcome of overall VTE occurrence
A summary of the meta-analysis results is summarized in Table 7. The first figures are the number of studies with valid data included in each analysis. Subsequently, details of the heterogeneity are reported, both in terms of the significance and the I2 values. The next figures are the pooled percentage of patients in which the outcome occurred for each method, presented with a corresponding confidence interval. The pooled results suggested that, for all patients combined, the occurrence of VTE was 1.0% (95% CI: 0.5% to 1.5%). The graphical illustration of the meta-analysis results is shown in Figure 3.
Table 7. Summary of meta-analysis results for overall VTE occurrence.
Figure 3. Overall VTE occurrence [14,17,18,19,20,21,22,25,26,28,29,30,31].
b
Statistical outcome of VTE occurrence depending on the type of surgical procedure (Open/MIS) and whether PLND was performed or not.
A summary of the meta-analysis results is shown in Table 8. The first figures are the number of studies with valid data included in each analysis. Subsequently, details of the heterogeneity are reported in terms of the significance and the I2 values. The final columns give the differences in outcome between the two risk groups. The pooled difference in outcome between groups is expressed as a relative risk. The pooled figure is presented along with a corresponding confidence interval. The final column shows the p-values indicating the significance of the differences between risk groups.
Table 8. Summary of meta-analysis results for VTE occurrence based on approach and PLND.
The analysis suggested a statistically significant difference in outcome between MIS and Open procedures, based on data from five studies. The pooled results suggested a lesser occurrence of VTEs in MIS procedures compared to Open procedures. The number of VTEs was just over a third lower (0.63 times as large) in the MIS group when compared to the Open Group. There was little heterogeneity between the different studies. A graphical illustration of the meta-analysis results is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. VTE in MIS and Open surgery [14,17,18,19,24].
There were two studies providing sufficient data to compare patients where PLND was used and not used. The data suggested some evidence that VTE was more common with the use of PLND. However, the result did not quite reach statistical significance. The pooled results suggested that a VTE was 2.8 times more likely when PLND was performed compared to when it was not. There was little heterogeneity between the two studies. A graphical illustration of the results is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. VTE in procedures with and without PLND [17,21].
c
Statistical outcome of VTE occurrence depending on the method of prophylaxis used (mechanical or combined).
The meta-analysis pooled together the results from studies with patients undergoing mechanical and combined prophylaxis methods. A summary of the meta-analysis results is shown in Table 9. The first figures are the number of studies with valid data included in each analysis. Subsequently, details of the heterogeneity are reported in terms of the significance and the I2 values. The next figures are the pooled percentage of patients with VTE for each method, presented with a corresponding confidence interval. The final column shows the p-values indicating the significance of the differences in VTE between groups.
Table 9. Summary of meta-analysis results for VTE occurrence by Prophylaxis method.
The pooled results suggested that 0.7% of patients underwent a VTE for the mechanical method, whilst 1.0% underwent VTE for the combined method. Statistically, no difference in VTE occurrence was found between the two methods. A graphical illustration of the results is shown in Figure 5.

4. Discussion

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a complex multifactorial clinical entity associated with significant morbidity and mortality and can present either as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or concomitant pulmonary embolism (PE) [32]. VTE in malignancies is multifactorial—it can be cancer-related, as well as individual-related. A hypercoagulable state is induced directly by activating the blood clotting cascade and inducing pro-coagulant and inhibiting anticoagulant properties of endothelial cells, platelets, monocytes, and macrophages [33].
VTE does have a considerable impact on morbidity, mortality, and economic cost, and has led to the development of VTE risk stratification tools such as the Caprini risk assessment [32]. In addition to VTE risks associated with major surgical procedures and underlying malignancy, the American Heart Association (AHA) has identified additional factors including prior VTE, age, obesity, immobility, and family history. VTE risk stratification in surgical patients according to the Seventh American College of Chest Physicians Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy is provided in Supplementary Table S4.
Thromboprophylaxis, whether mechanical, pharmacological, or combination, is widely practiced across surgical specialties based on substantial evidence from randomized control trials (RCTs). However, there has been a lack of urology-specific evidence, leading to conflicting recommendations both nationally and internationally [13]. This becomes more complicated when individual urological procedures are considered for VTE prophylaxis. In the case of RP, the European Association of Urology (EAU) 2022 has provided guidelines for VTE prophylaxis based on available literature [34]. The EAU has considered a few factors including patient VTE risk factors (Low/Medium/High), type of surgical intervention (Open/laparoscopic/Robotic), extent of surgery (No PLND/Standard PLND/Extended PLND), and availability of evidence for it. The summarized results are tabulated in Table 10. The studies and research used for EAU guidelines are mainly non-urological, and rightly, they have admitted that the evidence base is limited for this guideline. On the other hand, the National Institute for Health, and Care Excellence (NICE), UK, recommends VTE Prophylaxis to people undergoing abdominal (gastrointestinal, gynecological, urological) surgery who are at increased risk of VTE. It recommends mechanical VTE prophylaxis on admission for people undergoing abdominal surgery, either anti-embolism stockings or intermittent pneumatic compression (until the patient is ambulatory). It also recommends pharmacological VTE prophylaxis for people undergoing abdominal surgery, including 7 days for non-cancer and 28 days (Extended) for major cancer surgery postoperatively [35]. The American Urological Association (AUA) recommends mechanical prophylaxis during MIS urological procedures, and pharmacological prophylaxis is reserved for high-risk patients only. For open urological procedures, the AUA recommends consideration of combined prophylaxis [36].
Table 10. EAU guidelines for VTE prophylaxis.
To our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first of its kind specifically dealing with VTE prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy patients. We were able to establish a statistically significant higher incidence of VTE in open RP in comparison to MIS prostatectomy procedures. A similar observation has also been noticed in other abdominal procedures [37]. This analysis also revealed a higher incidence of VTE in patients undergoing RP, as well as PLND. A study in 2011 including 773 patients also demonstrated that there is a significant association between venous thromboembolism and radical prostatectomy plus pelvic lymph node dissection compared to radical prostatectomy only [25]. Lastly, we were able to establish that combined prophylaxis (mechanical and pharmacological) does not have an advantage over mechanical prophylaxis in RP. This implies that PP is not indicated for the routine MIS approach for RP procedures. This is a finding which has not been confidently proven before this meta-analysis.
Additionally, we did find that there are other well-established factors that can contribute to VTE occurrences in post-RP patients as well, including age, personal and family history of VTE. Some of the studies in this meta-analysis have discussed these contributing factors; however, the data were not enough to perform a statistical analysis. These have been summarized in Table 3. These factors are essential in stratifying high-risk cohorts of patients.
Lastly, we found that the duration of VTE prophylaxis after RP is quite variable across the globe. This is an issue that has been a bone of contention across surgical specialties both within and outside, and unfortunately, has been as such for more than a decade [38].
To summarize, this meta-analysis and systematic review revealed that VTE events in RP procedures were reduced by switching to MIS procedures in comparison to open procedures. Additionally, PLND increases the risk of VTE and should be considered a high-risk factor while stratifying patients for consideration of VTE prophylaxis. Lastly, PP in cases of RP does not have an added advantage to mechanical prophylaxis. This systematic review forms a basis and provides a platform for future, randomized controlled trials taking into account all variables for consideration of globally acceptable guidelines for VTE prophylaxis in RP surgeries.
The limitations of this study include the scarcity of research available, the heterogenous nature of studies (the Newcastle–Ottawa scale might not have been appropriate to evaluate the quality of all studies), and the non-uniformity of VTE prophylaxis practices across the globe for RP. In the future, there is a need for a multicentric, randomized control trial to establish a VTE risk scoring system for RP patients and VTE prophylaxis guidelines to bring uniformity to this controversial practice.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review concludes that the overall incidence of VTE post-RP is 1%. The incidence of VTE in patients undergoing RP for prostate cancer is significantly less in minimally invasive (Laparoscopic/Robotic) procedures in comparison to open. Patients need to be stratified into risk groups using pre-existing guidelines and risk categories, while PLND should be considered an additional risk factor. Additional PP to mechanical methods may not be necessary in all cases and should be considered in high-risk patients only.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12123979/s1, Table S1: PRISMA Checklist; Table S2: Search Strategy; Table S3: Clinicopathological Characteristics; Table S4: Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Risk Stratification in Surgical Patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.W., S.M. (Sanjeev Madaan); methodology, M.W., A.A.-M., S.M. (Subhabrata Mukherjee) and J.A.; validation, G.N., B.K.S. and S.M. (Sanjeev Madaan); formal analysis, M.W. and S.M. (Sanjeev Madaan); investigation, M.W., A.A.-M., S.M. (Subhabrata Mukherjee) and J.A.; resources, M.W. and S.M. (Sanjeev Madaan); data curation, M.W. and S.M. (Sanjeev Madaan); writing—original draft preparation, M.W.; writing—review and editing, M.W., G.N., B.K.S. and S.M. (Sanjeev Madaan); visualization, M.W.; supervision, S.M. (Sanjeev Madaan); project administration, M.W., A.A.-M., S.M. (Subhabrata Mukherjee), J.A. and S.M. (Sanjeev Madaan). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or supplementary material.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to Paul Bassett, statistician, and director of Stats Consultancy Ltd., for providing support in data analysis and statistical work. We are also thankful to Genny Franklin, Clinical Librarian, Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust, Dartford, UK, for helping in the evidence search.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Guyatt, G.H.; Eikelboom, J.W.; Gould, M.K.; Garcia, D.A.; Crowther, M.; Murad, M.H.; Kahn, S.R.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Francis, C.W.; Lansberg, M.G.; et al. Approach to Outcome Measurement in the Prevention of Thrombosis in Surgical and Medical Patients. Chest 2012, 141, e185S–e194S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kibel, A.S.; Loughlin, K.R. Pathogenesis and Prophylaxis of Postoperative Thromboembolic Disease in Urological Pelvic Surgery. J. Urol. 1995, 153, 1763–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Geerts, W.H.; Heit, J.A.; Clagett, G.P.; Pineo, G.F.; Colwell, C.W.; Anderson, F.A.; Wheeler, H.B. Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism. Chest 2001, 119, 132S–175S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Geerts, W.H.; Pineo, G.F.; Heit, J.A.; Bergqvist, D.; Lassen, M.R.; Colwell, C.W.; Ray, J.G. Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism. Chest 2004, 126, 338S–400S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhan, C.; Miller, M.R. Excess Length of Stay, Charges, and Mortality Attributable to Medical Injuries During Hospitalization. JAMA 2003, 290, 1868–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rossignol, G.; Léandri, P.; Gautier, J.; Quintens, H.; Gabay-Torbiero, L.; Tap, G. Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: Complications and Quality of Life (429 Cases, 1983–1989). Eur. Urol. 1991, 19, 186–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brenner, D.W.; Fogle, M.A.; Schellhammer, P.F. Venous Thromboembolism. J. Urol. 1989, 142, 1403–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. De Martino, R.R.; Goodney, P.P.; Spangler, E.L.; Wallaert, J.B.; Corriere, M.A.; Rzucidlo, E.M.; Walsh, D.B.; Stone, D.H. Variation in thromboembolic complications among patients undergoing commonly performed cancer operations. J. Vasc. Surg. 2012, 55, 1035–1040.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Beyer, J.; Wessela, S.; Hakenberg, O.; Wirth, M.; Schellong, S. Incidence and Disease Pattern of Venous Thrombembolism after Radical Prostatectomy. Blood 2005, 106, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. O’Donnell, M.; I Weitz, J. Thromboprophylaxis in surgical patients. Can. J. Surg. 2003, 46, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Pridgeon, S.; Allchorne, P.; Turner, B.; Peters, J.; Green, J. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and urological pelvic cancer surgery: A UK national audit. BJU Int. 2014, 115, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Tikkinen, K.A.; Craigie, S.; Agarwal, A.; Violette, P.D.; Novara, G.; Cartwright, R.; Naspro, R.; Siemieniuk, R.A.; Ali, B.; Eryuzlu, L.; et al. Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in Urological Cancer Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2017, 73, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Violette, P.D.; Cartwright, R.; Briel, M.; Tikkinen, K.A.; Guyatt, G.H. Guideline of guidelines: Thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery. BJU Int. 2016, 118, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Weinberg, A.; Wright, J.; Deibert, C.; Lu, Y.-S.; Hershman, D.; Neugut, A.; Spencer, B. Nationwide practice patterns for the use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among men undergoing radical prostatectomy. World J. Urol. 2013, 32, 1313–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analyses. 2013. Available online: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 22 December 2022).
  17. Patel, H.D.; Faisal, F.A.; Trock, B.J.; Joice, G.A.; Schwen, Z.R.; Pierorazio, P.M.; Johnson, M.H.; Bivalacqua, T.J.; Han, M.; Gorin, M.A.; et al. Effect of Pharmacologic Prophylaxis on Venous Thromboembolism after Radical Prostatectomy: The PREVENTER Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur. Urol. 2020, 78, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Valverde-Martinez, S.; Gonzalez-Rayo, L.-A.; Padilla-Fernandez, B.; Pereira-Bruno, J.; Coelho, H.; Montesino-Semper, M.; Müller-Arteaga, C.; Alvarez-Ossorio-Fernandez, J.-L.; Migliorini, F.; Garcia-Cenador, M.-B.; et al. Profilaxis farmacológica de la tromboembolia venosa en la prostatectomía radical. Sci. Direct 2020, 154, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tollefson, M.K.; Karnes, R.J.; Rangel, L.; Carlson, R.; Boorjian, S.A. Blood Type, Lymphadenectomy and Blood Transfusion Predict Venous Thromboembolic Events Following Radical Prostatectomy with Pelvic Lymphadenectomy. J. Urol. 2014, 191, 646–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chan, S.Y.S.; Leung, V.F.Y.; Yee, C.H.; Chan, E.S.Y.; Hou, S.S.M.; Chu, W.; Ng, C.F. Incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: A prospective study in Chinese patients. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2014, 46, 2139–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Chalmers, D.J.; Scarpato, K.R.; Staff, I.; Champagne, A.; Tortora, J.; Wagner, J.R.; Kesler, S.S. Does Heparin Prophylaxis Reduce the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Prostatectomy? J. Endourol. 2013, 27, 800–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abel, E.J.; Wong, K.; Sado, M.; Leverson, G.E.; Patel, S.R.; Downs, T.M.; Jarrard, D.F. Surgical Operative Time Increases the Risk of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in Robotic Prostatectomy. JSLS J. Soc. Laparosc. Robot. Surg. 2014, 18, 282–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dyer, J.; Wyke, S.; Lynch, C. Hospital Episode Statistics data analysis of postoperative venous thromboembolus in patients undergoing urological surgery: A review of 126,891 cases. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2013, 95, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Van Hemelrijck, M.; Garmo, H.; Holmberg, L.; Bill-Axelson, A.; Carlsson, S.; Akre, O.; Stattin, P.; Adolfsson, J. Thromboembolic Events following Surgery for Prostate Cancer. Eur. Urol. 2012, 63, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Eifler, J.; Levinson, A.; Hyndman, M.; Trock, B.; Pavlovich, C. Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection is Associated with Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism Risk during Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2011, 185, 1661–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Beyer, J.; Wessela, S.; Hakenberg, O.W.; Kuhlisch, E.; Halbritter, K.; Froehner, M.; Wirth, M.P.; Schellong, S.M. Incidence, risk profile and morphological pattern of venous thromboembolism after prostate cancer surgery. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2009, 7, 597–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Grasso, M.; Confalonieri, S.; Blanco, S.; Grasso, A.; Angelo, S. Preoperative blood donation program and postoperative Low Molecular Weight Heparine (LMWH) prophylaxis in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Archivos Españoles de Urología 2009, 62, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cindolo, L.; Salzano, L.; Mirone, V.; Imbimbo, C.; Longo, N.; Kakkos, S.K.; Reddy, D.J. Thromboprophylaxis in Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: Efficacy and Patient Compliance of a Dual Modality. Urol. Int. 2009, 83, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nakamura, K.; Kasraeian, A.; Yacoub, S.; Pendleton, J.; Anai, S.; Rosser, C.J. The use of enoxaparin to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: Feasibility and utility. Int. Braz J. 2007, 33, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koya, M.P.; Manoharan, M.; Kim, S.S.; Soloway, M.S. Venous thromboembolism in radical prostatectomy: Is heparinoid prophylaxis warranted? BJU Int. 2005, 96, 1019–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cisek, L.J.; Walsh, P.C. Thromboembolic complications following radical retropubic prostatectomy Influence of external sequential pneumatic compression devices. Urology 1993, 42, 406–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Salous, A.K.; Reyad, A.; Sweeney, K.; Mavanur, A. A significant proportion of venous thromboembolism events in general surgical patients occurs after discharge: Analysis of the ACS-NSQIP Essentials database. Perioper. Med. 2019, 8, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ostrowski, A.; Skrudlik, P.; Kowalski, F.; Lipowski, P.; Ostrowska, M.; Adamczyk, P.; Adamowicz, J.; Drewa, T.; Juszczak, K. Current Thromboprophylaxis in Urological Cancer Patients during COVID Pandemic. Cent. Eur. J. Urol. 2022, 75, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. EAU Guidelines. Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. ISBN 978-94-92671-16-5. Available online: https://uroweb.org/eau-guidelines/citing-usage-republication (accessed on 4 June 2023).
  35. NICE. Recommendations | Venous Thromboembolism in over 16s: Reducing the Risk of Hospital-Acquired Deep Vein Thrombosis or Pulmonary Embolism | Guidance | NICE. Nice.org.uk. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng89/chapter/Recommendations#interventions-for-people-having-abdominal-thoracic-or-head-and-neck-surgery (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  36. Forrest, J.B.; Clemens, J.Q.; Finamore, P.; Leveillee, R.; Lippert, M.; Pisters, L.; Touijer, K.; Whitmore, K. AUA Best Practice Statement for the Prevention of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients Undergoing Urologic Surgery. J. Urol. 2009, 181, 1170–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Barber, E.L.; Gehrig, P.A.; Clarke-Pearson, D.L. Venous Thromboembolism in Minimally Invasive Compared with Open Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 128, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Muntz, J. Duration of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in the surgical patient and its relation to quality issues. Am. J. Surg. 2010, 200, 413–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Current Approach and Future Directions in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Keratinocyte Carcinomas
Previous
Managing Labour in Women with COVID-19
Next