{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.053790412486064657, 'fraction_numerical': 0.057971014492753624, 'mean_word_length': 4.8452768729641695, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 9, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Effect of systematic graded rewarming measures on body temperature and prognosis of patients undergoing emergency trauma surgery].

OBJECTIVE
To observe the effect of systematic graded rewarming measures on body temperature and prognosis of patients with moderate and severe trauma [revised trauma score (RTS) < 12] requiring emergency operation.


METHODS
A prospective randomized double-blind controlled study was conducted. From January 2020 to January 2021, 104 patients who underwent emergency trauma surgery in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were selected as the research object. According to random number table method, the patients were divided into traditional rewarming group and systematic graded rewarming group, with 52 cases in each group. Patients in traditional rewarming group (only record the body temperature without intervention, and start the rewarming process when the body temperature at any time was less than 36 centigrade); the patients in the system graded rewarming group start the preventive measures as soon as they were admitted to the hospital, and record the body temperature. When the body temperature at any time was less than 36 centigrade, start the graded rewarming process. Observe the rewarming effect, coagulation function, blood gas analysis and postoperative anesthesia recovery time of the two groups and final outcome.


RESULTS
With the extension of time, the body temperature of the two groups increased gradually. The body temperature of the systematic grade rewarming group was significantly higher than that of the traditional rewarming group at 2 hours after rewarming and at discharge (centigrade: 36.23±0.77 vs. 35.84±0.93 at 2 hours after rewarming, 36.54±0.87 vs. 35.82±0.92 at discharge, both P < 0.05). The incidence of subsequent hypothermia was significantly lower than that in the traditional rewarming group [7.7% (4/52) vs. 25.0% (13/52), P < 0.05]. The postoperative activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) of the two groups was significantly shorter than that at admission (s: 35.74±8.05 vs. 45.55±28.02 in the systematic rewarming group, P < 0.05; 38.35±6.48 vs. 42.40±13.18 in the traditional rewarming group, P < 0.05); the intraoperative and postoperative pH values in the systematic rewarming group were significantly higher than those at admission (7.33±0.05, 7.36±0.06 vs. 7.30±0.07, both P < 0.05), while there was no significant difference between the intraoperative and postoperative pH values in the traditional rewarming group and those at admission (7.31±0.06, 7.33±0.06 vs. 7.31±0.05, both P > 0.05). The postoperative prothrombin time (PT) and anesthesia recovery time in the systematic graded rewarming group were significantly shorter than those in the traditional rewarming group [PT (s): 15.05±2.44 vs. 17.94±3.48, anesthesia recovery time (hours): 14.40±11.76 vs. 17.35±10.51, all P < 0.05], and the pH value was significantly higher than that in the traditional rewarming group (7.36±0.06 vs. 7.33±0.06, P < 0.05). The systematic graded rewarming group had higher improvement rate and lower disability rate than the traditional rewarming group (76.9% vs. 65.4% and 17.3% vs. 25.0%, both P < 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
Systematic graded rewarming measures can improve the hypothermia of emergency trauma patients who received surgery, reduce the incidence of subsequent hypothermia of trauma patients, shorten the time of postoperative resuscitation, improve the coagulation function and blood gas indexes, improve the treatment rate, and reduce the incidence of disability.