Heated insufflation with or without humidification for laparoscopic abdominal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative hypothermia during both open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery may be associated with adverse events. For laparoscopic abdominal surgery, the use of heated insufflation systems for establishing pneumoperitoneum has been described to prevent hypothermia. Humidification of the insufflated gas is also possible. Past studies on heated insufflation have shown inconclusive results with regards to maintenance of core temperature and reduction of postoperative pain and recovery times. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of heated gas insufflation compared to cold gas insufflation on maintaining intraoperative normothermia as well as patient outcomes following laparoscopic abdominal surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Specialised Register (September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to September 2016), Ovid Embase (1974 to September 2016), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) (September 2016), Web of Science (1985 to September 2016), Scopus, www.clinicaltrials.gov and the National Research Register (1956 to September 2016). We also searched grey literature and cross references. Searches were limited to human studies without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials comparing heated (with or without humidification) with cold gas insufflation in adult and paediatric populations undergoing laparoscopic abdominal procedures were included. We assessed study quality in regards to relevance, design, sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, possibility of incomplete data and selective reporting. Two review authors independently selected studies for the review, with any disagreement resolved in consensus with a third co-author. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed screening of eligible studies, data extraction and methodological quality assessment of the trials. We classified a study as low-risk of bias if all of the first six main criteria indicated in the 'Risk of Bias Assessment' table were assessed as low risk. We used data sheets to collect data from eligible studies. We presented results using mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. We used Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software to calculate the estimated effects. We took publication bias into consideration and compiled funnel plots. MAIN RESULTS: = 12%, P = 0.66) (moderate-quality evidence).There were also no differences in the frequency of major adverse events that occurred in the cold or heated cohorts.These results should be interpreted with caution due to some limitations. Heterogeneity of core temperature remained significant despite subgroup analysis, likely due to variations in the study design of the individual trials, as the trials had variations in insufflation gas temperatures (35 ºC to 37 ºC), humidity ranges (88% to 100%), gas volumes and location of the temperature probes. Additionally, some of the trials lacked specific study design information making evaluation difficult. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While heated, humidified gas leads to mildly smaller decreases in core body temperatures, clinically this does not account for improved patient outcomes, therefore, there is no clear evidence for the use of heated gas insufflation, with or without humidification, compared to cold gas insufflation in laparoscopic abdominal surgery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".