The effect of portable intermittent pneumatic compression devices in preventing lower limb deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery: A quasi-experimental multicenter study.

BACKGROUND Patients who undergo major orthopedic surgery are at high risk for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices are among the most commonly used mechanical prophylaxis methods. With advances in research and continuous device optimization, portable IPC devices have gradually emerged. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the preventive effect, comfort, and satisfaction of a portable intermittent pneumatic compression device on postoperative lower extremity DVT in patients following major orthopedic surgery.

OBJECTIVE To investigate the preventive effect of a portable intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) device on lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients following major orthopedic surgery.

METHODS A quasi-experimental study was conducted. A total of 266 patients who underwent major orthopedic surgery at four tertiary public hospitals in Jiangsu Province between January and December 2024 were enrolled. The control group of 133 individuals received preventive care using conventional mains-powered intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices, while the intervention group of 133 individuals received preventive care using rechargeable portable intermittent pneumatic compression devices. The incidence of DVT was compared between the two groups. Changes in coagulation parameters, pain levels, comfort, psychological acceptance, patient satisfaction, and nurse satisfaction were observed.

RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups of patients. The incidence of DVT was 2.26% (3/133) in the intervention group and 3.01% (4/133) in the control group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Psychological acceptance and patient satisfaction were significantly greater in the intervention group than in the control group (P < 0.05). Similarly, nurse satisfaction was significantly greater in the intervention group than in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION Portable IPC is a viable alternative that may offer advantages in patient and staff experience. Large-scale randomised controlled trials may be conducted in future to further validate the efficacy and scientific validity of the research findings, with consideration given to subsequent clinical implementation.