BACKGROUND:Trauma patients are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and standard dosing enoxaparin regimens may be inadequate for prophylaxis. This meta-analysis was performed to clarify the efficacy of alternative dosing regimens for VTE prophylaxis in this high-risk group. The objective of this systematic review was to review the evidence regarding weight-based dosing of enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients. METHODS:A systematic database search was undertaken for studies comparing standard versus weight-based dosing of enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in adult trauma patients, 18 years or older. The primary outcome was the achievement of anti-factor Xa (AFXa) levels within the prophylactic range. Secondary outcomes included subprophylactic AFXa levels, supraprophylactic AFXa levels, VTE incidence, and bleeding events. Meta-analysis was conducted using both fixed-and random-effects models, and presented as odds ratios, risk ratios (RRs), and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS:Four cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. Compared with standard dosing, weight-based enoxaparin prophylaxis dosing was associated with increased odds of prophylactic AFXa levels (odds ratio, 5.85; 95% CI, 3.02-11.30; p < 0.00001) and reduced risk of subprophylactic AFXa levels (RR, 3.97; 95% CI, 3.02-5.22; p < 0.00001). Standard dosing was associated with a reduced risk of supratherapeutic AFXa levels (RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.50; p = 0.0002), but this was not associated with a difference in risk of bleeding events (RD, −0.00; 95% CI, −0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.55). There was no statistical difference in incidence VTE between the two groups (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.02 to 0.03; p = 0.64). CONCLUSION:Compared with standard dosing, weight-based enoxaparin dosing regimens are associated with increased odds of prophylactic range AFXa levels. Further investigation is required to determine if this translates into improved VTE prophylaxis and reduced VTE incidence.

Introduction The internet has improved access to knowledge, with a reported 72% of internet users accessing health information online. YouTube is the most popular video-sharing website and is a frequently accessed source for health information. There are concerns, however, that patients and carers may be unable to identify and filter for trustworthy sources of information on these platforms. This study aimed to assess the quality of videos that are likely to be accessed when families search YouTube for transcranial procedures for the management of craniosynostosis. Methodology This was a cross-sectional, observational study that evaluated YouTube videos when searching for “fronto-orbital advancement” or “cranial vault remodeling.” The first 25 videos for each term were included. Videos were assessed for quality using the previously validated JAMA and DISCERN scoring tools. Results There was low interobserver variability for the scoring tools used. There was no statistically significant correlation between the video quality and any video characteristics assessed. Videos published by organizations had higher mean quality scores for both the JAMA and DISCERN tools when compared to surgeon, patient, or medical device company-produced videos. Conclusion This study showed that searching YouTube for fronto-orbital advancement and cranial vault remodeling yields videos of low quality and therefore patients and carers should be discouraged from “YouTube-ing” these procedures. Platforms such as YouTube may provide an opportunity for craniofacial units to create and disseminate high-quality educational videos to complement routine perioperative education.

No abstract