Comparison of forced‐air warming systems with lower body blankets using a copper manikin of the human body
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".