↓ Skip to main content

Warming of Irrigation Fluids for Prevention of Perioperative Hypothermia During Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Warming of Irrigation Fluids for Prevention of Perioperative Hypothermia During Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Published in
Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria M. Steelman, Sena Chae, Jed Duff, Michael J. Anderson, Adnan Zaidi

Abstract

To determine whether warming of irrigation fluids (32°C-40°C) compared with using room-temperature irrigation fluids (20°C-22°C) decreases the risk of perioperative hypothermia (<36°C) for patients undergoing shoulder, hip, or knee arthroscopy. One reviewer, with the assistance of a medical librarian, searched the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature). Level I and II studies involving shoulder, hip, or knee arthroscopy were included. Two reviewers screened the abstracts and titles. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of selected studies using The Cochrane Collaboration tool. Meta-analyses were conducted on the following outcomes: hypothermia, lowest temperature, maximum temperature drop, and shivering. Seven studies of patients undergoing arthroscopy were included in the qualitative synthesis (5 shoulder studies, 1 hip study, and 1 knee study; 501 patients). The study involving knee arthroscopy was excluded from the meta-analyses because of insufficient data and high clinical heterogeneity (surgical site distal to the core, not involving extravasation of large amounts of fluid). The remaining 6 studies were included in 1 or more meta-analyses: hypothermia (5 shoulder and 1 hip study), lowest temperature (3 shoulder and 1 hip study), maximum temperature drop (2 shoulder and 1 hip study), and shivering (5 shoulder and 1 hip study). Warming of irrigation fluids for shoulder or hip arthroscopy significantly decreased the risk of hypothermia (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-0.40; P = .0001), increased the lowest mean temperature (mean difference, 0.46°C; 95% CI, 0.11°C-0.81°C; P = .01), decreased the maximum temperature drop (mean difference, -0.64°C; 95% CI, -0.94°C to -0.35°C; P < .0001), and decreased the risk of shivering (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.86; P = .03). When irrigation fluids are warmed for shoulder and hip arthroscopy, the risk of hypothermia is less, the drop in intraoperative temperature is less, the lowest body temperature is higher, and the risk of postoperative shivering is reduced. Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Master 6 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 38 43%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 24%
Engineering 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 37 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,202,541
of 34,297,219 outputs
Outputs from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#713
of 5,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,303
of 492,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#29
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,297,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,193 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 492,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.