The effects of rivaroxaban on the complications of surgery after total hip or knee replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-operative complications after total hip or knee replacement can delay recovery, prolong hospitalisation, increase rates of re-admission and, in the most severe cases, lead to long-term disability or even death. In this analysis of pooled data from four large, randomised, phase III clinical trials that compared the oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban with subcutaneous enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement (n = 12,729), the incidence of complications, including bleeding and adverse events related to surgery (such as wound infection, wound dehiscence and haemarthrosis) are reported. Interventions and procedures relating to surgery are also compared between the groups. Bleeding events, including excessive wound haematoma and surgical-site bleeding, occurred at similar rates in the rivaroxaban and enoxaparin groups. Over the total study duration, adverse surgical events occurred at a similar rate in the rivaroxaban group compared with the enoxaparin group after total knee replacement (2.26% vs. 2.69%, respectively) and total hip replacement (1.48% vs. 1.65%, respectively). Blood loss, wound drainage and transfusion requirements were also similar between the two groups. This analysis shows that the incidence of adverse surgical events with rivaroxaban was similar to enoxaparin.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".