A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Clinical evaluation of a newly designed fluid warming kit on fluid warming and hypothermia during spinal surgery. | LitMetric

Background: The Mega Acer Kit® (MAK) is a newly designed heated and humidified breathing circuit that warms fluid passing through the circuit lumen. In this study, we investigated the system's efficacy for the perioperative prevention of hypothermia and fluid warming.

Methods: Ninety patients undergoing spinal surgery were enrolled in this study and randomly assigned to 3 groups based on the fluid warming device used: no fluid warming system (Group C, n = 30), via a Standard Ranger (Group R, n = 30), or via the MAK (Group M, n = 30). Distal esophageal temperatures (Teso) and infusion fluid temperature (TF) were recorded at 15 min intervals for duration of 180 min during surgery. If Teso was < 35.0℃, a forced-air convective warming device was used.

Results: Final Teso values were 34.8 ± 0.3℃, 35.1 ± 0.1℃, and 35.8 ± 0.3℃ in groups C, R, and M, respectively (P < 0.01). Teso was significantly higher in group M when compared with that in groups C and R throughout the study period (P < 0.05). The number of patients requiring a forced-air convective warming device was significantly lower in group M (n = 0) when compared with that in groups R (n = 17) and C (n = 30) (P < 0.05). The final infusion fluid temperature was higher in group M when compared with that in groups C and R throughout the study period (35.4 ± 1.0 vs. 23.0 ± 0.3 and 32.8 ± 0.6℃; P < 0.01).

Conclusions: The MAK is more effective for preventing hypothermia and for warming fluid than the Standard Ranger.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4610925PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2015.68.5.462DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

fluid warming
16
warming device
12
group compared
12
compared groups
12
fluid
9
newly designed
8
spinal surgery
8
standard ranger
8
infusion fluid
8
fluid temperature
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!