Search

Accurately monitoring peri-operative core temperature is a cornerstone of good practice. Relatively invasive devices such as oesophageal temperature probes and pulmonary artery catheters facilitate this, but are inappropriate for many patients. There remains a need for accurate monitors of core temperature that can be used in awake patients. This study compared the accuracy of two core temperature thermometers that can be used for this purpose: the 3M Bair Hugger™ Temperature Monitoring System Zero Flux Thermometer and the CorTempR™ Wireless Ingestible Temperature Sensor. Readings were compared with the oesophageal probe, the current intraoperative standard. Thirty patients undergoing elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia were recruited. The ingestible sensor was ingested prior to induction of anaethesia, and post induction, the zero-flux electrode attached above the right eyebrow and oesophageal probe inserted. During surgery, the temperature on each device was recorded every minute. Measurements were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. The ingestible sensor experienced interference from use of diathermy and fluoroscopy in the operating theatre, rendering 39% of its readings unusable. These were removed from analysis. With remaining readings the bias compared with oesophageal probe was + 0.42 °C, with 95% limits of agreement - 2.4 °C to 3.2 °C. 75.4% of readings were within ± 0.5 °C of the OTP reading. The bias for the zero flux electrode compared to oesophageal probe was + 0.02 °C with 95% limits of agreement - 0.5 °C to 0.5 °C. 97.7% of readings were within ± 0.5 °C of the oesophageal probe. The study findings suggest the zero-flux thermometer is sufficiently accurate for clinical use, whereas the ingestible sensor is not.Trial registration The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT Number: NCT02121574.

Introduction The Advanced Trauma Life Support protocol for emergent management of pelvic ring disruptions includes advising circumferential application of a bed sheet. A number of purpose-designed pelvic circumferential compression devices are commercially available. We assessed whether the Advanced Trauma Life Support-recommended simple bed sheet was able to generate the same pelvic pressure as provided by a pelvic circumferential compression device. Methods A healthy volunteer was laid supine on an examination trolley and a pressure transducer was placed overlying the volunteer’s greater trochanters. Two pelvic compression devices, a commercially available SAM Pelvic Sling II™ and a standard hospital bed sheet, were applied single handedly. The SAM Sling was applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions and the bed sheet was applied in the way the participant felt best. The pressures generated at the level of the greater trochanters were measured at 2 min. The mean of the left and right pressures was recorded. Following removal of the first device, the second device was then placed and the pressures were again recorded at 2 min. Results Twelve participants completed the study. The mean (standard deviation) pressure generated by the SAM sling was 107 (28.4) mmHg and by the bed sheet 54 (26.3) mmHg; the SAM sling generated significantly greater pressure ( p Conclusion In patients with a suspected pelvic fracture, a bed sheet is unable to reliably generate pressures approaching those of a commercially available pelvic circumferential compression device.