Calentamiento bajo el cuerpo por manta de contacto de fibra de carbono frente a manta de aire forzado para prevenir la hipotermia durante la cirugía ginecológica laparoscópica: ensayo aleatorizado

IF 0.9 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
M. Chanzá , M. Núñez , M.C. Velasco , C. Rodríguez-Cosmen , A.C. Carpintero , L. Gallart
{"title":"Calentamiento bajo el cuerpo por manta de contacto de fibra de carbono frente a manta de aire forzado para prevenir la hipotermia durante la cirugía ginecológica laparoscópica: ensayo aleatorizado","authors":"M. Chanzá ,&nbsp;M. Núñez ,&nbsp;M.C. Velasco ,&nbsp;C. Rodríguez-Cosmen ,&nbsp;A.C. Carpintero ,&nbsp;L. Gallart","doi":"10.1016/j.redar.2024.501689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Studies comparing intraoperative warming devices report discordant or out-of-date results. This trial compared two underbody warming devices.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Thirty patients undergoing elective prolonged laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were randomized to underbody warming by forced air (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->15) or contact with a carbon fiber blanket (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->15). The main outcome was esophageal temperature at the end of surgery. We also compared temperature throughout surgery and need for rescue warming, blood loss, fluids infused, urine output, and adverse events. Outcomes were compared with χ<sup>2</sup> or Fisher exact tests, <em>t</em>-tests, and mixed effects models as appropriate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No median (interquartile range) differences between forced-air and contact warming were found in initial or final temperatures (36.2<!--> <!-->°C [36.0, 36.2] <em>vs</em> 36.3<!--> <!-->°C [35.9, 36.6] and 36.6<!--> <!-->°C [36.2, 36.8] <em>vs</em> 36.3<!--> <!-->°C [35.6, 36.5]). Temperature slightly increased over time in the forced-air group and slightly decreased in the contact group (0.11<!--> <!-->°C/h [0.02, 0.19] <em>vs</em> −0.05<!--> <!-->°C/h [−0.13, 0.03], <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.008). A single patient required rescue warming (in the contact group after 4.75<!--> <!-->h). Surgery took longer in the contact group (3.2<!--> <!-->h [2.5, 3.8] <em>vs</em> 4.0<!--> <!-->h [2.9, 5.6] h, <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.042). Two surgeons complained of dizziness related to ambient heat in the forced-air group. No differences were found in the remaining variables.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>During use of the underbody forced-air and carbon-fiber warming devices tested, we recorded only very slight differences in temperature changes over the course of surgery. The variations can be considered clinically unimportant as no significant difference was evident at the end of surgery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46479,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion","volume":"72 5","pages":"Article 501689"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034935624001683","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Studies comparing intraoperative warming devices report discordant or out-of-date results. This trial compared two underbody warming devices.

Methods

Thirty patients undergoing elective prolonged laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were randomized to underbody warming by forced air (n = 15) or contact with a carbon fiber blanket (n = 15). The main outcome was esophageal temperature at the end of surgery. We also compared temperature throughout surgery and need for rescue warming, blood loss, fluids infused, urine output, and adverse events. Outcomes were compared with χ2 or Fisher exact tests, t-tests, and mixed effects models as appropriate.

Results

No median (interquartile range) differences between forced-air and contact warming were found in initial or final temperatures (36.2 °C [36.0, 36.2] vs 36.3 °C [35.9, 36.6] and 36.6 °C [36.2, 36.8] vs 36.3 °C [35.6, 36.5]). Temperature slightly increased over time in the forced-air group and slightly decreased in the contact group (0.11 °C/h [0.02, 0.19] vs −0.05 °C/h [−0.13, 0.03], P = .008). A single patient required rescue warming (in the contact group after 4.75 h). Surgery took longer in the contact group (3.2 h [2.5, 3.8] vs 4.0 h [2.9, 5.6] h, P = .042). Two surgeons complained of dizziness related to ambient heat in the forced-air group. No differences were found in the remaining variables.

Conclusions

During use of the underbody forced-air and carbon-fiber warming devices tested, we recorded only very slight differences in temperature changes over the course of surgery. The variations can be considered clinically unimportant as no significant difference was evident at the end of surgery.
在腹腔镜妇科手术中,用碳纤维接触毯对强制空气毯进行身体下方加热,以防止体温过低:随机试验
背景:比较术中加热装置的研究报告了不一致或过时的结果。该试验比较了两种人体下暖装置。方法选择30例选择性长时间腹腔镜妇科手术患者,随机分为强制空气加热组(n = 15)和接触碳纤维毯组(n = 15)。主要观察指标为手术结束时食管温度。我们还比较了整个手术过程中的温度和急救温度、失血量、输液量、尿量和不良事件。结果采用χ2或Fisher精确检验、t检验和混合效应模型进行比较。结果在初始或最终温度(36.2°C [36.0, 36.2] vs 36.3°C[35.9, 36.6]和36.6°C [36.2, 36.8] vs 36.3°C[35.6, 36.5])中位数(四分位数范围)无差异。加压空气组的温度随时间略有升高,接触组的温度略有下降(0.11°C/h [0.02, 0.19] vs - 0.05°C/h [- 0.13, 0.03], P = 0.008)。1例患者需要急救加热(接触组为4.75 h),接触组手术时间更长(3.2 h [2.5, 3.8] vs 4.0 h [2.9, 5.6] h, P = 0.042)。在强制空气组中,两名外科医生抱怨与环境高温有关的头晕。其余变量没有发现差异。在使用体底加压空气和碳纤维加热装置的过程中,我们在手术过程中只记录到非常微小的温度变化。这些差异在临床上不重要,因为在手术结束时没有明显的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
113
审稿时长
82 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信