Comparing new-technology passive warming versus traditional passive warming methods for optimizing perioperative body core temperature

AORN J. 2015 Aug;102(2):183.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2015.06.005.

Abstract

Hypothermia puts surgical patients at risk for adverse outcomes. Traditional passive warming methods are mostly ineffective in reducing hypothermia. New-technology passive warming holds promise as an effective method for promoting and sustaining normothermia throughout surgery. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the effectiveness of new-technology passive warming with traditional methods. We measured core body temperature at anesthesia induction and at the end of surgery for patients undergoing robotic-assisted prostatectomy/hysterectomy in the lithotomy position who received either new-technology passive warming (n = 30) or traditional linens and gel pads (n = 35). The traditionally warmed cohort had no change in temperature (35.9° C ± 0.6° C presurgery vs 35.9° C ± 0.7° C postsurgery; t = 0.47; P = .66). The intervention cohort showed a significant increase in temperature (35.75° C ± 0.52° C presurgery vs 36.30° C ± 0.53° C postsurgery; t = 4.64; P < .001). A repeated-measure analysis of variance adjusting for surgery duration and fluid administration confirmed the significance (F = 17.254; P < .001), suggesting that new-technology passive warming may effectively complement active warming to reduce perioperative hypothermia.

Keywords: hypothermia; hysterectomy; lithotomy position; passive warming; perioperative; prostatectomy.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Body Temperature Regulation*
  • Cohort Studies
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Perioperative Care*