Impact of Weight-Band Dosing of Tinzaparin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis on Persistent Wound Drainage in Adult Patients Undergoing Hip and Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Persistent wound drainage and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are potential complications of total joint arthroplasty, and these risks can be challenging to balance in clinical practice. Anecdotal observation has suggested that following joint arthroplasty, persistent wound drainage occurs more frequently with higher body weight and higher doses of tinzaparin when compared with lower body weight and lower doses of tinzaparin. Objective: The overall purpose of this study was to describe the impact of a tinzaparin weight-band dosing table for VTE prophylaxis on wound healing, thrombosis, and bleeding outcomes in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. Methods: This retrospective chart review included patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty and received tinzaparin for thromboprophylaxis per their weight-banding category. The primary outcome was the incidence of persistent wound drainage. Secondary outcomes include the occurrence of VTE and clinically important bleeding during hospital admission. Results: A total of 231 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in persistent wound drainage between the 3 weight categories, and there were no differences in rates of VTE or clinically important bleeding. Concurrent use of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid was associated with a 3-fold increased risk of persistent wound drainage (risk ratio = 3.35; 95% CI = 2.14-5.24; P = 0.00003). Conclusion and Relevance: In joint arthroplasty patients, we observed no significant difference in rates of persistent wound drainage between various weight categories receiving different weight-banded doses of tinzaparin. Our results do not suggest that the current weight-band dosing table for tinzaparin needs to be adjusted to optimize patient outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".