The prevalence and risk factors of intraoperative hypothermia in patients with hip/knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative hypothermia (IOH) is common among patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) of the lower extremities. Evaluating the risk factors for IOH is critical for the success of preventive interventions. This study aims to systematically assess the prevalence and risk factors of IOH in TJA patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Two independent researchers conducted a literature search across eight databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, WANFANG Data, and CBM. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was employed to analyze the prevalence and risk factors of IOH. All analyses were performed using Stata 12.0 software. RESULTS: Across 21 cohort studies on TJA patients, the pooled prevalence of IOH was 35.28% (95% CI: 27.50%-43.48%). Subgroup analysis revealed an IOH prevalence of 38.66% (95% CI: 28.67%-49.16%) in THA patients and 27.23% (95% CI: 18.37%- 37.11%) in TKA patients. Significant risk factors for IOH included intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative infusion volume, operating room temperature, and surgical time. Current evidence does not support a clear association between patient age, anesthesia time, and IOH. CONCLUSION: Our Meta-analysis indicates that the prevalence of IOH is high among TJA patients, despite significant heterogeneity (I² =98.7%, τ²= 0.15), the pooled analysis suggested the prevalence of IOH in TJA patients was 35.28% (95% CI: 27.50%-43.48%). However, the interpretation of these findings should be cautious due to substantial variability across studies. Additionally, assessment of intraoperative blood loss, infusion volume, operating room temperature, and surgical time should be integral to IOH risk evaluation in TJA patients. Future studies are needed to further explore the roles of age and anesthesia time as potential risk factors. Tailored IOH prevention strategies should be developed by addressing modifiable risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42024559846
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".