Users Online : 333 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   |   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 ¤   Next article
 ¤   Previous article
 ¤   Table of Contents

 ¤   Similar in PUBMED
 ¤  Search Pubmed for
 ¤  Search in Google Scholar for
 ¤Related articles
 ¤   Citation Manager
 ¤   Access Statistics
 ¤   Reader Comments
 ¤   Email Alert *
 ¤   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded175    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2018  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 285-290

Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis: Are we overdoing? An Asian survey on trends in bariatric surgery with a systematic review of literature

GEM Hospital and Research Centre, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. P Praveen Raj
GEM Hospital and Research Centre, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_151_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: Obesity is a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). VTE is the most common cause of mortality in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. There is considerable variation in practice regarding methods, dosages and duration of prophylaxis in this patient population. Most of the literature is based on Western patients and specific guidelines for Asians do not exist. Methods: We conducted a web-based survey amongst 11 surgeons from high-volume centres in Asia regarding their DVT prophylaxis measures in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We collected and analysed the data. Results: The reported incidence of DVT and VTE ranged from 0% to 0.2%. Most surgeons (63.64%) preferred to use both mechanical and chemoprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin being the most preferred form of chemoprophylaxis (81.82%). There was an equal distribution of weight-based, body mass index-based and fixed-dose regimens. Duration of chemoprophylaxis ranged from 3–5 days after surgery to 2 weeks after surgery. For high-risk patients, 60% surgeons preferred to start chemoprophylaxis at least 1 week before surgery. Routine use of inferior vena cava filters in high-risk patients was not preferred with some surgeons adopting a selective use (36.36%). Conclusion: The purpose of this survey was to understand the trends in DVT prophylaxis amongst different high-volume bariatric centres in Asia and to relate the same with the existing literature on the different steps in prophylaxis. There is, however, a need for consensus guidelines for DVT prophylaxis in Asian obese.


Print this article     Email this article

© 2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04