Affiliation

Cassie Mandala PA- C Fox Valley Orthopaedic Institute, Geneva, IL, USA

Corresponding Author

Vishal Mehta, MD, Cassie Mandala PA- C Fox Valley Orthopaedic Institute, 2525 Kaneville Rd, Geneva, IL 60134, Tel: (630) 584-1400/ Fax: (630) 584-1733; E-mail: vmehta44@gmail.com

Citation

Mehta, V. Comparison of Forced Air and Conductive Heating Systems During Outpatient Orthopedic Surgeries. (2018) J Anesth Surg 5(1): 13- 16.

Copy rights

© 2018 Mehta, V. This is an Open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Keywords

Abstract

Background: It is critical to maintain a normal or near-normal body temperature during and after surgery. Traditionally this has been done using a forced air device. One of the main concerns with forced air devices is that they may increase bacterial contamination in the surgical field before and during surgery. Recently, conductive heating systems have been developed and used to address these concerns. While these devices do not disrupt airflow at the surgical site, their efficacy versus forced air devices has been called into question.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of a forced air device to a conductive heating device in their ability to maintain perioperative patient normothermia.
Methods: 50 patients undergoing outpatient orthopedic procedures were randomized into either the Forced Air group (FA) or Conductive Heat group (CH). In the patients randomized to the FA group, a Bair Hugger™ (Arizant Medical, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota) forced-air cover was positioned over the upper body (if lower extremity surgery) or lower body (if upper extremity surgery). In patients assigned to the CH group, a VitaHEAT Medical® (VitaHEAT Medical, LLC , Rolling Meadows, IL) conductive heating device was placed under the torso of the patient. Following standard surgical protocol, patients in both groups were draped appropriately. Stabilization of the ambient temperature was maintained near 20°C. Data regarding demographics and anthropometrics wsa recorded. Patient temperature was recorded at 15 minute intervals throughout the surgery and throughout the recovery room stay. Intraoperative and recovery room temperatures between the two groups were compared using a student’s T-test.
Results: No statistically significant difference in mean intra-operative temperatures was found between the two groups (FA = 97.95 °F / 36.64 °C and CH = 97.64 °F / 36.47 °C, p = .063). No statistically significant difference in mean recovery room temperatures was found between the two groups (FA = 97.68 °F / 36.49°C and CH = 97.53 °F / 36.41°C, p = .39)
Conclusion: There was no difference between intra-operative and recovery room temperatures between patients using either a forced air device or a conductive heating device. Those involved in perioperative care should be familiar with conductive heating devices as a potential alternative to traditional forced air devices.
Clinical Relevance: Conductive heating devices may cause less contamination at the surgical site than forced air devices. However, the efficacy of conductive heating devices is largely unknown. This study demonstrates that conductive heating devices are as efficacious as forced air devices.