ArticleEuropean journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care2025
Reusable versus disposable forced air warming: A comparative study of thermal performance as a first step toward more sustainable practices.
Article in European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerioperative hypothermia increases the risk of surgical complications making effective patient warming essential. Disposable forced air warming blankets, while effective, contribute significantly to healthcare waste and environmental impact. Reusable alternatives may offer similar efficacy while reducing environmental footprint, but their thermal performance requires rigorous evaluation.
objectiveTo assess the safety and effectiveness of reusable textile blankets as an alternative to disposable forced air warming blankets, as a first step toward developing more sustainable perioperative practices.
designWe conducted an in-vitro, prospective, head-to-head comparison of heating performance in full-body and upper body designs, using three blanket types in a simulated operating-room scenario. Blanket types included disposable single use (DSU), light reusable cotton (LRC) and heavy reusable cotton (HRC). A single forced-air warmer was set to 38 °C for all tests, which simulated both normothermic (37 °C) and hypothermic (25 °C) patient conditions, measuring surface temperatures at six anatomically relevant points across the simulated body.
settingLaboratory-based simulation in a controlled environment simulating operating room conditions with ambient temperature maintained at 20 ± 0.5 °C.
participantsA standardised simulated patient thermal model set to either normothermic (37 °C) or hypothermic (25 °C) conditions.
main outcome measureSurface temperature and temperature homogeneity were measured at six anatomically relevant points across the simulated body.
resultsThe heavy cotton blanket provided the highest and most homogenous surface temperature in full-body designs (36.7 ± 0.6 °C) (DSU = 35.4 ± 1.1 °C; LRC = 35.7 ± 1.7 °C) (
conclusionCarefully designed reusable blankets may provide a safe and environmentally friendly alternative to disposable forced air warming blankets, potentially reducing costs and environmental impact. Additional research examining infection control, durability through multiple laundering cycles and comprehensive life cycle analysis would further validate these promising findings.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.