Molnar, R.Jenkin, D.Millar, M.Campbell, D.Harris, I.2012-06-182012-06-182011Journal of Arthroplasty, 2011; 27(2):173-1790883-54031532-8406http://hdl.handle.net/2440/71626Previous surveys of orthopedic surgeons have shown considerable variation in thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism after joint arthroplasty. This survey aimed to determine the current practice among Australian orthopedic surgeons. A questionnaire regarding the duration, reasons, and methods of chemical and mechanical prophylaxis for hip and knee arthroplasty patients was sent to the 1082 surgeons identified; 593 (55%) members completed the questionnaire. The survey revealed that 98% of surgeons used chemical thromboprophylaxis, mainly low-molecular-weight heparin (84% hip and 79% knee). Those who use low-molecular-weight heparin were more likely to prescribe anticoagulants in fear of litigation (19.2% vs 10.1%, P = .04) and more likely to rely on protocols or guidelines (32.2% vs 17.2%, P = .004) instead of basing their decision on their own reading (52.4% vs 71.3%, P = .001). Most orthopedic surgeons in our survey have indicated that they would welcome guidelines from their association or college regarding thromboprophylaxis in arthroplasty.enCopyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V.HumansAspirinWarfarinHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightAnticoagulantsMotion Therapy, Continuous PassiveArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeData CollectionRisk FactorsAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaPractice Guidelines as TopicVenous ThromboembolismSurveys and QuestionnairesPractice Patterns, Physicians'Journal article002011769810.1016/j.arth.2011.05.0030002996007000032-s2.0-8485554274525254Campbell, D. [0000-0002-1572-9529]