» Articles » PMID: 32911980

Factors Affecting the Decision to Initiate Anticoagulation After Spine Surgery: Findings From the AOSpine Anticoagulation Global Initiative

Abstract

Study Design: Cross-sectional, international survey.

Objectives: To identify factors influencing pharmacologic anticoagulation initiation after spine surgery based on the AOSpine Anticoagulation Global Survey.

Methods: This survey was distributed to the international membership of AOSpine (n = 3805). A Likert-type scale described grade practice-specific factors on a scale from low (1) to high (5) importance, and patient-specific factors a scale from low (0) to high (3) importance. Analysis was performed to determine which factors were significant in the decision making surrounding the initiation of pharmacologic anticoagulation.

Results: A total of 316 spine surgeons from 64 countries completed the survey. In terms of practice-specific factors considered to initiate treatment, expert opinion was graded the highest (mean grade ± SD = 3.2 ± 1.3), followed by fellowship training (3.2 ± 1.3). Conversely, previous studies (2.7 ± 1.2) and unspecified guidelines were considered least important (2.6 ± 1.6). Patient body mass index (2.0 ± 1.0) and postoperative mobilization (2.3 ± 1.0) were deemed most important and graded highly overall. Those who rated estimated blood loss with greater importance in anticoagulation initiation decision making were more likely to administer thromboprophylaxis at later times (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68-0.71), while those who rated drain output with greater importance were likely to administer thromboprophylaxis at earlier times (HR = 1.32-1.43).

Conclusion: Among our global cohort of spine surgeons, certain patient factors (ie, patient mobilization and body mass index) and practice-specific factors (ie, expert opinion and fellowship training) were considered to be most important when considering anticoagulation start times.

Citing Articles

Risk factors for spinal subdural hematoma after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): a multivariate analysis.

Lu J, Zhang W, Jiang G, Luo K, Cai K, Zhang K BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023; 24(1):939.

PMID: 38053117 PMC: 10696805. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06902-z.

References
1.
Schizas C, Neumayer F, Kosmopoulos V . Incidence and management of pulmonary embolism following spinal surgery occurring while under chemical thromboprophylaxis. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17(7):970-4. PMC: 2443263. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-008-0668-z. View

2.
Ploumis A, Ponnappan R, Sarbello J, Dvorak M, Fehlings M, Baron E . Thromboprophylaxis in traumatic and elective spinal surgery: analysis of questionnaire response and current practice of spine trauma surgeons. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(3):323-9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ca652e. View

3.
Scuderi G, Brusovanik G, Fitzhenry L, Vaccaro A . Is wound drainage necessary after lumbar spinal fusion surgery?. Med Sci Monit. 2005; 11(2):CR64-6. View

4.
Schroeder G, Hilibrand A, Arnold P, Fish D, Wang J, Gum J . Epidural Hematoma Following Cervical Spine Surgery. Global Spine J. 2017; 7(1 Suppl):120S-126S. PMC: 5400190. DOI: 10.1177/2192568216687754. View

5.
Kepler C, McKenzie J, Kreitz T, Vaccaro A . Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018; 26(14):489-500. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00561. View