Zero-Heat-Flux and Esophageal Temperature Monitoring in Orthopedic Surgery: An Observational Study

Barriers and facilitators to evidence-based perioperative hypothermia management for orthopaedic patients: A systematic review

AIM

To assess barriers and facilitators to the implementation of guidelines for the prevention of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in orthopaedic patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Nine databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Scopus, Web of Science and Trip Clinical Evidence Database.

METHODS

Primary studies published in English between January 2008 to July 2022 were screened. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were completed independently by researchers. Data were extracted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies were included in the review. The most frequently reported barriers and facilitators related to evidence strength, relative advantage, and cost of implementing perioperative hypothermia prevention guidelines. The top four ERIC strategies were: Identify and prepare champions; Conduct educational meetings; Assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators; and Inform local opinion leaders.

CONCLUSION

This review provides synthesized evidence regarding barriers and facilitators to perioperative hypothermia guidelines for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE

Our work provides theory guided strategies to promote implementation of perioperative hypothermia prevention to assist nurses caring for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery.

IMPACT

Findings provide professionals caring for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery with theory-informed strategies to improve perioperative hypothermia prevention. Reducing perioperative hypothermia will improve outcomes for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery.

REPORTING METHOD

The review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Due to the study design, no patient or public consultation took place.

Agreement of zero-heat-flux thermometry with the oesophageal and tympanic core temperature measurement in patient receiving major surgery

To identify and prevent perioperative hypothermia, most surgical patients require a non-invasive, accurate, convenient, and continuous core temperature method, especially for patients undergoing major surgery. This study validated the precision and accuracy of a cutaneous zero-heat-flux thermometer and its performance in detecting intraoperative hypothermia. Adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgeries with general anaesthesia were enrolled in the study. Core temperatures were measured with a zero-heat-flux thermometer, infrared tympanic membrane thermometer, and oesophagal monitoring at 15-minute intervals. Taking the average value of temperature measured in the tympanic membrane and oesophagus as a reference, we assessed the agreement using the Bland-Altman analysis and linear regression methods. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of detecting hypothermia were estimated. 103 patients and one thousand sixty-eight sets of paired temperatures were analyzed. The mean difference between zero-heat-flux and the referenced measurements was -0.03 ± 0.25 °C, with 95% limits of agreement (-0.52 °C, 0.47 °C) was narrow, with 94.5% of the differences within 0.5 °C. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.90 (95%CI 0.89-0.92). The zero-heat-flux thermometry detected hypothermia with a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 90%. The zero-heat-flux thermometer is in good agreement with the reference core temperature based on tympanic and oesophagal temperature monitoring in patients undergoing major surgeries, and appears high performance in detecting hypothermia.

Perioperative temperature monitoring for patient safety: A period prevalence study of five hospitals

BACKGROUND

Monitoring body temperature is essential for safe perioperative care. Without patient monitoring during each surgical phase, alterations in core body temperature will not be recognised, prevented, or treated. Safe use of warming interventions also depends on monitoring. Yet there has been limited evaluation of temperature monitoring practices as the primary endpoint.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate temperature monitoring practices during all stages of perioperative care. We examined what patient characteristics are associated with the rate of temperature monitoring, along with clinical variables such as warming intervention or exposure to hypothermia.

DESIGN

An observational period-prevalence study over seven days across five Australian hospitals.

SETTINGS

Four metropolitan, tertiary hospitals and one regional hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

We selected all adult patients (N = 1690) undergoing any surgical procedure and any mode of anaesthesia during the study period.

METHODS

Patient characteristics, perioperative temperature data, warming interventions and exposure to hypothermia were retrospectively collected from patient charts. We describe the frequencies and distribution of temperature data at each perioperative stage, including adherence to minimum temperature monitoring based on clinical guidelines. To examine associations with clinical variables, we also modelled the rate of temperature monitoring using each patient's count of recorded temperature measurements within their calculated time interval from anaesthetic induction to postanaesthetic care unit discharge. All analyses adjusted 95% confidence intervals (CI) for patient clustering by hospital.

RESULTS

There were low levels of temperature monitoring, with most temperature data clustered around admission to postanaesthetic care. Over half of patients (51.8%) had two or less temperatures recorded during perioperative care and one-third (32.7%) had no temperature data at all prior to admission to postanaesthetic care. Of all patients that received active warming intervention during surgery, over two-thirds (68.5%) had no temperature monitoring recorded. In our adjusted model, associations between clinical variables and the rate of temperature monitoring often did not reflect clinical risk or need: rates were decreased for those with greatest operative risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification IV: rate ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.89; emergency surgery: RR 0.89, 0.80-0.98), and neither warming interventions (intraoperative warming: RR 1.01, 0.93-1.10; postanaesthetic care unit warming: RR 1.02, 0.98-1.07) nor hypothermia at postanaesthetic care unit admission (RR 1.12, 0.98-1.28) were associated with monitoring rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings point to the need for systems-level change to enable proactive temperature monitoring over all phases of perioperative care to enhance patient safety outcomes.

REGISTRATION

Not a clinical trial.

Implementation of continuous temperature monitoring during perioperative care: a feasibility study

Background

Continuous body temperature monitoring during perioperative care is enabled by using a non-invasive “zero-heat-flux” (ZHF) device. However, rigorous evaluation of whether continuous monitoring capability improves process of care and patient outcomes is lacking. This study assessed the feasibility of a large-scale trial on the impact of continuous ZHF monitoring on perioperative temperature management practices and hypothermia prevention.

Methods

A feasibility study was conducted at a tertiary hospital. Participants included patients undergoing elective surgery under neuraxial or general anesthesia, and perioperative nurses and anesthetists caring for patient participants. Eighty-two patients pre and post introduction of the ZHF device were enrolled. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention, protocol adherence, missing data or device failure, and staff evaluation of intervention feasibility and acceptability. Process of care outcomes included temperature monitoring practices, warming interventions and perioperative hypothermia.

Results

There were no adverse events related to the device and feasibility of recruitment was high (60%). Treatment adherence varied across the perioperative pathway (43 to 93%) and missing data due to electronic transfer issues were identified. Provision of ZHF monitoring had most impact on monitoring practices in the Post Anesthetic Care Unit; the impact on intraoperative monitoring practices was minimal.

Conclusions

Enhancements to the design of the ZHF device, particularly for improved data retention and transfer, would be beneficial prior to a large-scale evaluation of whether continuous temperature monitoring will improve patient outcomes. Implementation research designs are needed for future work to improve the complex area of temperature monitoring during surgery.

 Trial registration

Prospective registration prior to patient enrolment was obtained from the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) on 16^th April 2021 (Registration number: ACTRN12621000438853).