Warming efficacy of Ranger™ and FT2800 fluid warmer under different room temperatures and flow rates.

The comparison of the heating capabilities with different warming system between 3M™ Ranger™ warmer (3M) and FT2800 fluid warmer (FT) under different room temperatures and infusion rates, has been rarely reported previously. The study was then aimed to compare the warming efficacies of dry heat technology (3M) and coaxial warming system (FT) under different room temperatures and infusion rates, the advantages and disadvantages of both infusion systems would be compared to provide reference for clinical infusion practice. In the study, both target warming temperatures of 3M and FT warmer were set at 41 °C, fluid was administrated under 20, 22 and 24 °C room temperatures and drip rates of 60, 80, 100, 120, 140, 160, 200, 350 drops min-1. The fluid temperature at the outlet of the infusion tube (Toutlet) was measured and compared. The Toutlet of FT was higher than that of 3 M (P < 0.001) under different room temperatures. The Toutlet of FT increased with the room temperature raised (P < 0.05). As for 3M, Toutlet was lowest at 20 °C (P < 0.001) and no statistical difference of Toutlet was found between 22 and 24 °C (P = 0.667). Linear regression showed that the Toutlet of 3M increased with the speed up of drip rate, while the Toutlet of FT was decreased. The relationship between Toutlet & room temperature & drip rate for both 3M and FT warmers was calculated by a formula. 3M Ranger™ and FT2800 show different heating capabilities under different room temperatures and drip rates. 3M is more efficient at high flow rate while FT is more efficient at low flow rate. There is a formula relationship between Toutlet & room temperature & drip rate for both 3M and FT warmers.

Comparative analysis of techniques to prevent laparoscopic fogging.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficiency and efficacy of two common and commercially available methods to resolve lens fogging: a Fluid Warming System (O.R. Solutions, Chantilly, VA) and the Clearify Visualization System (Covidien, Mansfield, MA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 40 patients undergoing laparoscopic renal procedures with the Fluid Warming System (first 20 cases) and then the Clearify Visualization System (second 20 cases). We utilized the standard Fluid Warming System per a 30-second modified protocol established in our laboratory. We used the Clearify according to manufacturer instructions. For each procedure we documented the etiology of each episode of visual obstruction, procedure type and surgery duration. We performed a cost analysis. For all cases we used the same insufflator, insufflation trocar location and trocar configuration. RESULTS: All 40 patients completed the study protocol without incident. The mean fogging events per hour for the Fluid Warming System and Clearify Visualization System were 0.7 (0-2.52) and 1.4 (0-5.02), respectively (P = 0.045). Surgery duration and cost per procedure were similar for both systems. CONCLUSION: The Fluid Warming System with modified technique was found to have less fogging events than the Clearify Visualization System, with no difference in operative time or cost.

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

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.

Clinical evaluation of a newly designed fluid warming kit on fluid warming and hypothermia during spinal surgery / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: The Mega Acer Kit(R) (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 < 35.0degrees C, a forced-air convective warming device was used. RESULTS: Final Teso values were 34.8 +/- 0.3degrees C, 35.1 +/- 0.1degrees C, and 35.8 +/- 0.3degrees C 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 +/- 0.6degrees C; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The MAK is more effective for preventing hypothermia and for warming fluid than the Standard Ranger.