A new multicenter study has identified and quantified which factors are most likely to increase the rate of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) after vertebral fractures. Their study, “Thromboembolic Events After Traumatic Vertebral Fractures: An Analysis of 190,192 Patients,” was published in the September 15, 2018 edition of Spine.
What Pushes Thromboembolic Events Rates Up?

Co-author Andre M. Samuel, M.D., a third-year orthopedic resident at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York explained the study to OTW, “Thromboembolic events are a serious, preventable postoperative complication that is associated with increased mortality, long-term morbidity, and health care costs. However, chemoprophylaxis with spinal injuries and after spine surgery is controversial due to risks for epidural hematoma.”
The researchers identified all patients with vertebral fractures in the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank Research Data Set (NTDB RDS) from years 2011 and 2012. They found a total of 190,192 vertebral fractures patients. Using a multivariate analysis, they found that inpatient length of stay was most associated with increased VTEs with an odds ratio (OR) of up to 96.60 for length of stay longer than 28 days (compared to 0 – 3 days).
According to Dr. Samuel, “No large cohorts exist describing the rates and risk factors for VTEs after spinal fractures. This new data will help surgeons risk stratify patients for mechanical and chemoprophylaxis.”
“More aggressive prophylaxis measures should be considered for patients with spinal cord injuries, associated abdominal injuries or femur fractures, obesity, cancer history, or an extended hospital length of stay.”
The investigators also found that in the “… study group of over 190,000 patients with vertebral fractures, the overall rate of VTEs was 2.5%. But when patients with complete spinal cord injuries were measures, the rate rose to 8.6% and then to 12.0% in patients with history of cancer.”

Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.