Prophylaxis for Pediatric Venous Thromboembolism

Current Status and Changes Across Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America From 2011

Robert F. Murphy, MD; David Williams, PhD; Grant D. Hogue, MD; David D. Spence, MD; Howard Epps, MD; Henry G. Chambers, MD; Benjamin J. Shore, MD


J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(9):388-394. 

In This Article


This survey was part of a yearlong committee charge from the POSNA Quality Safety Value Initiative hip and lower extremity council. Institutional review board approval was not obtained for this study because no protected health information was analyzed. After the approval from the POSNA evidence-based medicine committee, the e-mail addresses of all active and candidate members of POSNA were used to deliver a 35-question survey ( After the initial request for completion, secondary and tertiary reminder e-mails were sent 2 and 3 weeks later. The survey was closed at 4 weeks. Respondents were not compensated for the completion of the survey.

The survey consisted of questions in three domains. The first domain involved questions regarding personal and practice demographics such as location, years in practice, and patient operative volume. The second domain queried the current VTE prophylaxis practices such as institutional protocols and implementation triggers, frequency of utilization of mechanical and/or agents of VTE prophylaxis, and risk factors. The third domain queried utilization of VTE prophylaxis in various clinical scenarios including spinal fusion, hip reconstruction, pelvis/lower extremity trauma, and neuromuscular patients. Table 1 (Supplemental Digital Content 1, includes an abbreviated list of the survey questions. Appendix 1 (Supplemental Digital Content 2, is a complete listing of all survey questions, with a notation regarding which questions were the same from the 2011 survey. Owing to the limitations of the variable survey engines between current and 2011 surveys, we were unable to compare answers between the two surveys but we were able to assess how many respondents completed both surveys.

One- and two-way frequency tables were constructed comparing results from the current survey and the 2011 survey. Statistical significance was defined as a P value < 0.05. Statistical analysis was completed using SAS (version 9.4).