MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412695431 · doi:10.1186/s12891-025-08962-9

The prevalence and risk factors of intraoperative hypothermia in patients with hip/knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4412695431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bin Fan, Bo-Liang Li, Zhi Wang, Hao Wu, Li Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSports medicineOrthopedic surgeryArthroplastyMeta-analysisHip arthroplastyRheumatologyHypothermiaInternal medicinePhysical therapySurgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207