Are there any risk factors for developing complications with the use of retrievable vena cava filters in orthopaedic surgery?

Background: In high-risk patients, common prophylaxis may be insufficient to prevent thromboembolic events after orthopaedic procedures. In this scenario, a retrievable vena cava filter (VCF) could be considered as an alternative, although it's use remains controversial. Therefore, we asked: (1) what is the overall mechanical complication rate associated with the use of retrievable VCFs in orthopaedic surgery?, (2) what is the association with thromboembolic disease (TED) recurrence, post-thrombotic syndrome and/or major bleeding according to different surgical characteristics?, (3) What is the overall mortality rate attributed to VCF use?Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 68 patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery with a previous diagnosis of TED, in whom a retrievable VCF was placed. Permanent filters were excluded. We studied the filter’s mechanical complications and considered as possible outcomes death and 3 hematologic complications: TED recurrence, post-thrombotic syndrome and major bleeding. To estimate association with risk factors, we subclassified surgeries into 5 groups: 1, arthroplasty/non-arthroplasty; 2, primary/revision; 3, elective/urgent; 4, oncologic/non-oncologic; 5, preoperative/postoperative filter.Results: Mechanical complications were 16% and required a filter revision. Sixty-four percent of the revised VCFs developed a mechanical failure and could not be retrieved. Overall prevalence of TED recurrence, post-thrombotic syndrome and hemorrhage was 33%, 15% and 4.5%, respectively. Spinal surgeries were a risk factor for developing TED recurrences. Only 4% of patients died of a TED recurrence.Conclusions: Orthopaedic procedures had a high risk of mechanical and hematologic complications after using a retrievable VCF. However, mortality was low due to these complications.