MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408803485 · doi:10.1097/mbc.0000000000001352

Comparing fondaparinux and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4408803485 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zain Ul Abideen, Esha Dilawar, Haseeb Javed Khan, Burhan Khalid, Muhammad Ansab, Sania Aimen, Areehah Zafar Masood

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFondaparinuxMeta-analysisLow molecular weight heparinArthroplastyRelative riskConfidence intervalPerioperativePublication biasVenous thrombosisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineThrombosisSurgeryVenous thromboembolism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a significant cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality despite the availability of prophylactic medications. There has been a debate about which thromboprophylaxis medication, Fondaparinux or low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH), is better after hip and knee arthroplasty. We have compared these two treatment regimens in our study. Electronic databases like PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect were searched from inception to August 2024. The weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes were pooled using the Review Manager software version 5.4.1, and a random effects model was employed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (ROB 2.0) were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Publication bias was evaluated visually through funnel plots and statistically through Egger's regression. GRADE assessment was used to analyze the certainty of evidence. A total of 17 studies, 9 Cohorts, and 8 Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pooling a total of 74 499 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Fondaparinux showed a statistically significant reduction in the risk of VTE [0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.48, 0.71]; P < 0.00001; I2 = 36%] and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: [0.56, 1.00]; P = 0.05; I2 = 68%) compared to LMWH. Major bleeding (RR = 2.06, 95% CI: [1.19, 3.57]; P = 0.01; I2 = 43%), surgical site bleeding (RR = 1.67, 95% CI: [1.04, 2.66]; P = 0.03; I2 = 9%), and postoperative transfusions (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: [1.02, 1.12]; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%) were significantly higher in the Fondaparinux group. Symptomatic VTE, pulmonary embolism, mortality, and operating time showed no significant difference between the two groups. In conclusion, Fondaparinux is superior to LMWH in VTE and DVT prophylaxis. However, it is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding, surgical site bleeding, and postoperative transfusions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood Coagulation & FibrinolysisSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207