RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hip fractures, most common in the geriatric age group, can develop proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). There is no consensus regarding the ideal method or duration of prophylaxis, particularly in a trauma patient. This study bridges this lacuna in data by making a random comparison between mechanical prophylaxis alone vis-a-vis combined with mechanical and Enoxaparin-based chemoprophylaxis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 75 Elderly hip trauma patients from January 2019 to October 2020 at a single tertiary care center were randomly allocated into two groups using the sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelope method (SNOSE): one (n=44) receiving Enoxaparin and Mechanical prophylaxis and another (n=31) receiving Mechanical prophylaxis alone. All patients underwent CT (computed tomography) venography to screen for proximal DVT between days 5 to 10 of injury. The primary outcomes were the incidence of proximal DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), and safety outcomes (wound complications and adverse systemic events) were recorded during the treatment. RESULTS: No symptomatic or asymptomatic proximal DVT and death incidence was reported in either group. One case of pulmonary embolism was seen in the combined prophylaxis group. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the above-mentioned parameters mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in the incidence of proximal DVT between mechanical alone and combined chemical-mechanical prophylaxis in elderly patients sustaining hip trauma. The incidence of proximal DVT can be reduced by mechanical prophylaxis alone. It was efficacious and safer than combined mechanical and enoxaparin prophylaxis in preventing venous thromboembolism in elderly hip trauma patients.