×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Review paper

Comparative analysis of the effects of dalteparin and reviparin on perioperative blood loss in patients with extracapsular hip fractures treated with intramedullary nailing

By
Mirza Sivro Orcid logo ,
Mirza Sivro
Contact Mirza Sivro

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Canton Hospital Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Faruk Lazović ,
Faruk Lazović

Orthopaedics and Traumatology Clinic, Clinical Centre, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ðemil Omerović ,
Ðemil Omerović

Orthopaedics and Traumatology Clinic, Clinical Centre, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Tarik Kapidžić ,
Tarik Kapidžić

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Canton Hospital Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Adnan Papović ,
Adnan Papović

Orthopaedics and Traumatology Clinic, Clinical Centre, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mirza Omerčević ,
Mirza Omerčević

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Canton Hospital Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Harun Selimović
Harun Selimović

Department of Cardiology, Canton Hospital Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

Aim
To determine differences between reviparin and dalteparin treatment in patients with extracapsular hip fractures treated with intramedullary nailing and their effects on perioperative blood loss and early postoperative recovery.
Methods
Retrospective comparative study included 68 patients with extracapsular hip fracture who were divided into dalteparin
and reviparin group. Medical records were used to obtain demographic data, laboratory parameters, haemoglobin and haematocrit levels, platelet count, mortality rate and medical complications.
Results
Out of total 68 patients, 31 were in reviparin and 37 in dalteparin group. Mean age of patients was 70.5 (±14.4) and
76.8 (±8.4) years in reviparin and dalteparin group, respectively (p=0.071). Median values of haemoglobin levels on the first postoperative day were lower in dalteparin group compared to reviparin group (p=0.012). On the first postoperative day haematocrit values were also lower in dalteparin than in reviparin group (p=0.015).
Both groups showed an increase in platelet count on the first postoperative day, but without significant difference (p=0.084). There was no statistically significant difference in intrahospital mortality between the groups (6.4% vs. 2.7%; p=0.588). One case of pulmonary embolism was detected in the dalteparin group.
Conclusion
Low-molecular-weight heparin is the drug of choice in patients with hip fractures for thromboprophylaxis. Due to
non-antithrombin-mediated actions, reviparin and dalteparin could have different effects on perioperative blood loss. Both dalteparin and reviparin are safe and effective agents for thromboprophylaxis in patients with proximal femur fractures.

References

1.
Tornetta P, Ricci M, Ostrum F, Mcqueen M, Mckee M. Rockwood and Green’s Fractures in Adults. Wolters Kluwer Health; 2019.
2.
Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L. Has mortality after a hip fracture increased? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007. p. 1720–6.
3.
Dhanwal K, Dennison M, Harvey C, Cooper C. Epidemiology of hip fracture: Worldwide geographic variation. Indian J Orthop. 2011. p. 15–22.
4.
AO Principles of Fracture Management. 3. Georg Thieme Verlag; 2017.
5.
Sanchez M, Lozano H, Velarde-Garrido D, Alarma B, Sanchez-Mayoral V, Romera O, et al. Key factors influencing clinical and functional outcomes in extracapsular proximal femur fractures: the role of early weight-bearing -one-year follow-up cohort of 495 patients. Med Glas. 2021. p. 280–6.
6.
Racine E. Differentiation of the low-molecularweight heparins. Pharmacotherapy. 2001. p. 62–70.
7.
Ronga M, Bonzini D, Valoroso M, Barbera L, Tamini G, Cherubino J, et al. Blood loss in trochanteric fractures: multivariate analysis comparing dynamic hip screw and Gamma nail. Injury. 2017. p. 44–7.
8.
Hao C, Sun M, Wang H, Zhang L, Wang. Low molecular weight heparins and their clinical aplications. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2019. p. 21–39.
9.
Foss N, Kristensen M, Kehlet H. Anaemia impedes functional mobility after hip fracture surgery. Age Ageing. 2008. p. 173–8.
10.
Tian S, Shen Z, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Peng A. The effect of tranexamic acid on hidden bleeding in older intertrochanteric fracture patients treated with PFNA. Injury. 2018. p. 680–4.
11.
Schiavone A, Bissacia M, Inkov I, Rinonapoli G, Manni M, Rollo G, et al. Tranexamic acid in petrochanteric femoral fracture: Is it a safe drug or not. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2018. p. 67–78.
12.
Chang H, Lu W, Kuan F, Su W, Chen P, Su P, et al. Wound drainage after proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) fixation may negatively affect the patients with intertrochanteric fractures: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Injury. 2021. p. 575–81.
13.
Lanzetti R, Caraffa A, Lupariello D, Ceccarini P, Gambaracci G, Meccariello L, et al. Comparison between locked and unlocked intramedullary nails in intertrochanteric fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018. p. 649–58.
14.
David G, Umberto M, Cioancă R, F, Alfonso A, Cristina C, et al. Metabolic Shock in Elderly Pertrochanteric or Intertrochanteric Surgery. Comparison of three surgical methods. Is there a much safer? Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care. 2020. p. 17–26.
15.
Okoye O, Gelbard R, Inaba K, Esparza M, Belzberg H, Talving P, et al. Dalteparin versus Enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolic events in trauma patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2014. p. 183–9.
16.
Miano T, Cuker A, Christie J, Martin N, Smith B, Makley A, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of enoxaparin vs dalteparin for thromboprophylaxis after traumatic injury. Chest. 2018. p. 133–42.
17.
Begatin J, Carević V, Begatin K. Jesu li svi niskomolekularni heparini jednaki? (Are all low molecular wight heparins the same?) [in Croatian]. Medicus. 2010. p. 191–6.
18.
Müller M, Koch P, Nzarian S, Schatzker J. The Comprehensive Classification of Fractures of Long Bones. Springer; 1990.
19.
Mayhew D, Mendonca V, Murthy B. A review of ASA physical status -historical perspectives and modern developments. Anaesthesia. 2019. p. 373–9.
20.
Li L, Bennett-Brown K, Morgan C, Dattani R. Hip fractures. Br J Hosp Med. 2020. p. 1–10.
21.
Zuckerman J. Hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 1996. p. 1519–25.
22.
Rinonapoli G, Ruggiero C, Meccariello L, Bisaccia M, Ceccarini P, Caraffa A. Osteoporosis in men: a review of an underestimated bone condition. Int J Mol Sci. 2021. p. 2105.
23.
Bisaccia M, Rinonapoli G, Meccariello L, Ripani U, Pace V, Rollo G, et al. Osteoporosis in male patients: epidemiology, clinical aspects and DEXA Scan assessment. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2019. p. 31–5.
24.
Seong Y, Shin W, Moon N, Suh K. Timing of Hip-fracture Surgery in Elderly Patients: Literature Review and Recommendations. Hip Pelvis. 2020. p. 11–6.
25.
Nagra N, Van Popta D, Whiteside S, Holt E. An analysis of postoperative hemoglobin levels in patients with a fractured neck of femur. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016. p. 507–13.
26.
Biławicz J, Lipa M, Wielgos M. Comparison of lowmolecular-weight heparins in thromboprophylaxis of major orthopaedic surgery -randomized, prospective pilot study. Open Med. 2020. p. 1048–53.
27.
Owings J, Kraut E, Battistella F, Cornelius J, Malley O, R. Timing of the occurrence of pulmonary embolism in trauma patients. Arch Surg. 1997. p. 862–7.
28.
Planès A, Vochelle N, Fagola M, Bellaud M. Comparison of two low-molecular-weight heparins for the prevention of postoperative venous thromboembolism after elective hip surgery. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 1998. p. 499–505.

Citation

Authors retain copyright. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License

 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.