Skip to main content
main-content

06.03.2019 | Topic Paper | Ausgabe 3/2020

World Journal of Urology 3/2020

Perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in prostate cancer surgery

Zeitschrift:
World Journal of Urology > Ausgabe 3/2020
Autoren:
Zachary Klaassen, Christopher J. D. Wallis, Luke T. Lavallée, Philippe D. Violette
Wichtige Hinweise

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abstract

Purpose

To describe a patient and procedure specific approach to selecting Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for men who undergo radical prostatectomy.

Methods

We performed a literature search and narrative review of VTE after radical prostatectomy. We describe the current paradigm of perioperative thromboprophylaxis and underlying rationale. Relevant findings from the European Association of Urology thromboprophylaxis guidelines are interpreted and summarized.

Results

The use of extended post-operative thromboprophylaxis for patients who undergo radical prostatectomy is appropriate when the risk of symptomatic VTE outweighs the risk of major bleeding. Patient and procedure factors impact VTE risk. Patient risk can be stratified as low, moderate or high based on 4 factors; age > 75, BMI > 35, VTE in a first degree relative, and personal history of VTE. Procedure risk of VTE and bleeding can be stratified by modality of surgery (open, laparoscopic, robotic) and extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy. Using these factors, patients at the lowest risk for VTE will have an expected incidence of VTE of 0.4–0.8% and those at highest risk from 1.5 to 15.7%. Incidence of major bleeding ranges from 0.4 to 1.4%. These ranges emphasize the need to consider the net benefit for each specific patient. Use of mechanical prophylaxis is supported by weaker evidence but has fewer harms and is likely reasonable for most patients.

Conclusion

Many patients who undergo radical prostatectomy will benefit from extended post-operative thromboprophylaxis. Risk of thrombosis is likely higher with open approach and extended lymph node dissection. The net benefit of treatment should be considered using patient- and procedure-specific criteria. When the net benefit is negligible or possibly harmful no pharmacological thromboprophylaxis should be used.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

World Journal of Urology 3/2020 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Gynäkologie & Urologie 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Urologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise