Comparison of forced‐air warming systems with lower body blankets using a copper manikin of the human body
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Forced-air warming has gained high acceptance as a measure for the prevention of intraoperative hypothermia. However, data on heat transfer with lower body blankets are not yet available. This study was conducted to determine the heat transfer efficacy of six complete lower body warming systems. METHODS: Heat transfer of forced-air warmers can be described as follows:[1]Qdot;=h.DeltaT.A where Qdot; = heat transfer [W], h = heat exchange coefficient [W m-2 degrees C-1], DeltaT = temperature gradient between blanket and surface [ degrees C], A = covered area [m2]. We tested the following forced-air warmers in a previously validated copper manikin of the human body: (1) Bair Hugger and lower body blanket (Augustine Medical Inc., Eden Prairie, MN); (2) Thermacare and lower body blanket (Gaymar Industries, Orchard Park, NY); (3) WarmAir and lower body blanket (Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Cincinnati, OH); (4) Warm-Gard(R) and lower body blanket (Luis Gibeck AB, Upplands Väsby, Sweden); (5) Warm-Gard and reusable lower body blanket (Luis Gibeck AB); and (6) WarmTouch and lower body blanket (Mallinckrodt Medical Inc., St. Luis, MO). Heat flux and surface temperature were measured with 16 calibrated heat flux transducers. Blanket temperature was measured using 16 thermocouples. DeltaT was varied between -10 and +10 degrees C and h was determined by a linear regression analysis as the slope of DeltaT vs. heat flux. Mean DeltaT was determined for surface temperatures between 36 and 38 degrees C, because similar mean skin temperatures have been found in volunteers. The area covered by the blankets was estimated to be 0.54 m2. RESULTS: Heat transfer from the blanket to the manikin was different for surface temperatures between 36 degrees C and 38 degrees C. At a surface temperature of 36 degrees C the heat transfer was higher (between 13.4 W to 18.3 W) than at surface temperatures of 38 degrees C (8-11.5 W). The highest heat transfer was delivered by the Thermacare system (8.3-18.3 W), the lowest heat transfer was delivered by the Warm-Gard system with the single use blanket (8-13.4 W). The heat exchange coefficient varied between 12.5 W m-2 degrees C-1 and 30.8 W m-2 degrees C-1, mean DeltaT varied between 1.04 degrees C and 2.48 degrees C for surface temperatures of 36 degrees C and between 0.50 degrees C and 1.63 degrees C for surface temperatures of 38 degrees C. CONCLUSION: No relevant differences in heat transfer of lower body blankets were found between the different forced-air warming systems tested. Heat transfer was lower than heat transfer by upper body blankets tested in a previous study. However, forced-air warming systems with lower body blankets are still more effective than forced-air warming systems with upper body blankets in the prevention of perioperative hypothermia, because they cover a larger area of the body surface.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».