{
    "abstract": "Studies comparing intraoperative warming devices report discordant or out-of-date results. This trial compared two underbody warming devices.\nThirty patients undergoing elective prolonged laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were randomized to underbody warming by forced air (n\u202f=\u202f15) or contact with a carbon fibre blanket (n\u202f=\u202f15). 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 \u03c7\u00b2 or Fisher exact tests, t-tests, and mixed effects models as appropriate.\nNo median (interquartile range) differences between forced-air and contact warming were found in initial or final temperatures (36.2\u202f\u00b0C [36.0, 36.2] vs 36.3\u202f\u00b0C [35.9, 36.6] and 36.6\u202f\u00b0C [36.2, 36.8] vs 36.3\u202f\u00b0C [35.6, 36.5]). Temperature slightly increased over time in the forced-air group and slightly decreased in contact group (0.11\u202f\u00b0C/h (0.02, 0.19) vs -0.05\u202f\u00b0C/h (-0.13, 0.03), p\u202f=\u202f0.008). A single patient required rescue warming (in contact group after 4.75 h). Surgery took longer in the contact group (3.2\u202fh [2.5, 3.8] vs 4.0\u202fh [2.9, 5.6] h, p\u202f=\u202f0.042). Two surgeons complained of dizziness related to ambient heat in the forced-air group. No differences were found in the remaining variables.\nDuring use of the underbody forced-air and carbon-fibre 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.",
    "authors": [
        {
            "affiliation": "Servei d'Anestesiologia, Reanimaci\u00f3 i Terap\u00e8utica del Dolor, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.",
            "firstname": "M",
            "initials": "M",
            "lastname": "Chanz\u00e1"
        },
        {
            "affiliation": "Servei d'Anestesiologia, Reanimaci\u00f3 i Terap\u00e8utica del Dolor, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.",
            "firstname": "M",
            "initials": "M",
            "lastname": "N\u00fa\u00f1ez"
        },
        {
            "affiliation": "Servei d'Anestesiologia, Reanimaci\u00f3 i Terap\u00e8utica del Dolor, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.",
            "firstname": "M C",
            "initials": "MC",
            "lastname": "Velasco"
        },
        {
            "affiliation": "Servei d'Anestesiologia, Reanimaci\u00f3 i Terap\u00e8utica del Dolor, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.",
            "firstname": "C",
            "initials": "C",
            "lastname": "Rodr\u00edguez-Cosmen"
        },
        {
            "affiliation": "Servei d'Anestesiologia, Reanimaci\u00f3 i Terap\u00e8utica del Dolor, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.",
            "firstname": "A C",
            "initials": "AC",
            "lastname": "Carpintero"
        },
        {
            "affiliation": "Servei d'Anestesiologia, Reanimaci\u00f3 i Terap\u00e8utica del Dolor, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain; Grup de recerca en Medicina Perioperat\u00f2ria i Dolor, Programa de Recerca en Neuroci\u00e8ncies, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain; Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: lgallart@hospitaldelmar.cat.",
            "firstname": "L",
            "initials": "L",
            "lastname": "Gallart"
        }
    ],
    "conclusions": null,
    "copyrights": "Copyright \u00a9 2024 The Author(s). Publicado por Elsevier Espa\u00f1a, S.L.U. All rights reserved.",
    "doi": "10.1016/j.redare.2025.501689",
    "journal": "Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion",
    "keywords": [
        "Cirug\u00eda laparosc\u00f3pica abdominal",
        "Dispositivos de calentamiento",
        "Hipotermia",
        "Hypothermia",
        "Laparoscopic abdominal surgery",
        "Temperatura",
        "Temperature",
        "Warming devices"
    ],
    "methods": null,
    "publication_date": "2025-02-18",
    "pubmed_id": "39961536",
    "results": "No median (interquartile range) differences between forced-air and contact warming were found in initial or final temperatures (36.2\u202f\u00b0C [36.0, 36.2] vs 36.3\u202f\u00b0C [35.9, 36.6] and 36.6\u202f\u00b0C [36.2, 36.8] vs 36.3\u202f\u00b0C [35.6, 36.5]). Temperature slightly increased over time in the forced-air group and slightly decreased in contact group (0.11\u202f\u00b0C/h (0.02, 0.19) vs -0.05\u202f\u00b0C/h (-0.13, 0.03), p\u202f=\u202f0.008). A single patient required rescue warming (in contact group after 4.75 h). Surgery took longer in the contact group (3.2\u202fh [2.5, 3.8] vs 4.0\u202fh [2.9, 5.6] h, p\u202f=\u202f0.042). Two surgeons complained of dizziness related to ambient heat in the forced-air group. No differences were found in the remaining variables.",
    "title": "Underbody carbon-fiber contact warming versus underbody forced-air warming to prevent hypothermia during laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: A randomized trial.",
    "xml": "<Element 'PubmedArticle' at 0x788503951cb0>"
}