ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rapid fluid warming has been a cardinal measure to maintain normothermia during fluid resuscitation of hypovolemic patients. A previous laboratory simulation study with different fluid infusion rates showed that a fluid warmer using magnetic induction is superior to a warmer using countercurrent heat exchange. We tested whether the simulation-based result is translated into the clinical liver transplantation. METHODS: Two hundred twenty recipients who underwent living donor liver transplantation between April 2009 and October 2011 were initially screened. Seventeen recipients given a magnetic induction warmer (FMS2000) were matched 1 : 1 with those given a countercurrent heat exchange warmer (Level-1 H-1000) based on propensity score. Matched variables included age, gender, body mass index, model for end-stage liver disease score, graft size and time under anesthesia. Core temperatures were taken at predetermined time points. RESULTS: Level-1 and FMS groups had comparable core temperature throughout the surgery from skin incision, the beginning/end of the anhepatic phase to skin closure. (P = 0.165, repeated measures ANOVA). The degree of core temperature changes within the dissection, anhepatic and postreperfusion phase were also comparable between the two groups. The minimum intraoperative core temperature was also comparable (Level 1, 35.6degrees C vs. FMS, 35.4degrees C, P = 0.122). CONCLUSIONS: A countercurrent heat exchange warmer and magnetic induction warmer displayed comparable function regarding the maintenance of core temperature and prevention of hypothermia during living donor liver transplantation. The applicability of the two devices in liver transplantation needs to be evaluated in various populations and clinical settings.
Subject(s)
Humans , Anesthesia , Body Mass Index , Body Temperature Changes , Hot Temperature , Hypothermia , Hypovolemia , Liver Diseases , Liver Transplantation , Living Donors , Propensity Score , Resuscitation , Rewarming , Skin , TransplantsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rapid fluid warming has been a cardinal measure to maintain normothermia during fluid resuscitation of hypovolemic patients. A previous laboratory simulation study with different fluid infusion rates showed that a fluid warmer using magnetic induction is superior to a warmer using countercurrent heat exchange. We tested whether the simulation-based result is translated into the clinical liver transplantation. METHODS: Two hundred twenty recipients who underwent living donor liver transplantation between April 2009 and October 2011 were initially screened. Seventeen recipients given a magnetic induction warmer (FMS2000) were matched 1 : 1 with those given a countercurrent heat exchange warmer (Level-1 H-1000) based on propensity score. Matched variables included age, gender, body mass index, model for end-stage liver disease score, graft size and time under anesthesia. Core temperatures were taken at predetermined time points. RESULTS: Level-1 and FMS groups had comparable core temperature throughout the surgery from skin incision, the beginning/end of the anhepatic phase to skin closure. (P = 0.165, repeated measures ANOVA). The degree of core temperature changes within the dissection, anhepatic and postreperfusion phase were also comparable between the two groups. The minimum intraoperative core temperature was also comparable (Level 1, 35.6degrees C vs. FMS, 35.4degrees C, P = 0.122). CONCLUSIONS: A countercurrent heat exchange warmer and magnetic induction warmer displayed comparable function regarding the maintenance of core temperature and prevention of hypothermia during living donor liver transplantation. The applicability of the two devices in liver transplantation needs to be evaluated in various populations and clinical settings.
Subject(s)
Humans , Anesthesia , Body Mass Index , Body Temperature Changes , Hot Temperature , Hypothermia , Hypovolemia , Liver Diseases , Liver Transplantation , Living Donors , Propensity Score , Resuscitation , Rewarming , Skin , TransplantsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of study was to examine effects of aromatherapy on stress, sleep, nausea and vomiting of women after laparoscopic hysterectomy. METHODS: The participants were 60 women who had laparoscopic hysterectomy: experiment group for aromatherapy (n=30) and control group for routine care (n=30). The experimental group received inhalation aromatherapy for 5 minutes, twice; the first was done right after the operation, the second was at 9 pm before sleep on the same day--while the control group had no inhalation. Data were collected from July to September, 2012 at G hospital. RESULTS: The degree of psychological stress was not significantly different between two groups (t=-1.96, p= .054). Yet, there were significant differences between two groups for degree of physiological stress (t=-3.20, p= .002), the level of cortisol (t=-2.01, p= .049), the score of sleep status (t=2.47, p= .016), the score of sleep satisfaction (t=2.43, p= .018), and the score for nausea and vomiting (t=-2.58, p= .012). CONCLUSION: Inhalation aromatherapy using the mixed oil of lavender, mandarin, and marjoram was effective in decreasing the level of physiological stress, cortisol, and the score for nausea and vomiting, and also allowed the participants to have a better sleep. Therefore, inhalation aromatherapy could be effective in improving the quality of life of these women during recovery.