Effects of Heated Infiltration Solutions and Forced-Air Heating Blankets on Intraoperative Hypothermia During Liposuction: A Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to compare the effects of heat preservation by two recommended methods, heated infiltration solutions and forced-air heating blankets, in patients undergoing liposuction under general anesthesia. METHODS: Forty patients were divided into four groups based on whether heated infiltration solutions or forced-air heating blankets were used. Group A received general anesthesia liposuction plastic surgery routine temperature care. Based on the care measures of group A, heated infiltration solutions were used in group B; forced-air heating blanket was used in group C; and heated infiltration solutions and forced-air heating blankets were both used in group D. The primary end point was intraoperative and perioperative temperature measured with an infrared tympanic membrane thermometer. Secondary end points included surgical outcomes, subjective experience, and adverse events. RESULTS: Compared with group A, the intraoperative body temperatures of groups B, C, and D were significantly higher, indicating that the two intervention methods were helpful on increasing the core body temperature. Pairwise comparisons of these three groups showed that there was no significant difference between group C and group D. However, using forced-air heating blankets had a marked effect compared with using heated infiltration solutions alone at three time points. The same trend could be seen in other surgical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Heated infiltration solutions and forced-air heating blankets could reduce the incidence of intraoperative hypothermia and improve patients' prognosis after liposuction under general anesthesia. Compared with the heated infiltration fluid, the forced-air heating blanket may have a better thermal insulation effect. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Faster Return to Daily Activities and Better Pain Control: A Prospective Study of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Breast Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been proven to decrease the amount of opioid use and reduce postoperative pain for a variety of surgeries, including breast reconstruction. However, data on ERAS in breast augmentation is lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ERAS for breast augmentation. METHODS: A standardized ERAS protocol was established with full consideration of all aspects of perioperative care. Patients undergoing implant-based breast augmentation were prospectively recruited between December 2020 and January 2023, and assigned to either the ERAS or non-ERAS group randomly. The primary outcome was the activity of daily living after surgery. The secondary was postoperative pain and other outcomes included time to freely elevation, vomiting frequency, the use of analgesics, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were included, with 70 in the ERAS group and 52 in the non-ERAS group. Compared to non-ERAS patients, ERAS patients had a shorter time to freely elevation of upper limbs (2.3 d vs. 5.5 d, P < 0.001). For ERAS patients, the pain scores were significantly lower on postoperative days 1 to 3, the activity of daily living index was significantly higher on postoperative days 1 to 3 and the opioids consumption was decreased (7.1 mg vs. 46.2 mg, P = 0.018). No difference was observed in complication and hospital costs between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The ERAS protocol significantly reduced postoperative pain and the use of opioids and promoted a return to daily activities without increasing complications in breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .