{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01066447908121411, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004922067268252666, 'mean_word_length': 5.931818181818182, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Heparin thromboprophylaxis via indwelling subcutaneous teflon cannula.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the administration of postoperative heparin thromboprophylaxis via an indwelling subcutaneous cannula. Fifty consecutive patients undergoing laparotomy, laparoscopy or varicose vein surgery were studied. Each patient on admission had a 24 gauge subcutaneous cannula inserted and a conventional subcutaneous heparin injection preoperatively. The first 20 patients received an alternating postoperative regimen of morning heparin via cannula and evening heparin via conventional injection into the abdominal wall. The remaining 30 patients received postoperative heparin twice daily via the cannula. Patients and nursing staff were interviewed and their preference for either method was recorded. There were no significant complications with the cannula system. Although it was more costly and nursing staff found it more labour intensive than conventional subcutaneous injections, the majority of patients preferred to receive heparin via the cannula. We conclude that this is an excellent method of administering prophylactic subcutaneous heparin, especially for patients with a strong aversion to injections.