Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Sep 4;19(9):e0309515. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309515

Pocket warming of bupivacaine with fentanyl to shorten onset of labor epidural analgesia: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

Tyler M Balon 1,, Yun Xia 2,, Johnny McKeown 3, Jack Wang 1, Justin J Abbott 1, Marilly Palettas 4, Alberto Uribe 2, Marco Echeverria Villalobos 2, John C Coffman 2, Ling-Qun Hu 2,*
Editor: Ahmed Mohamed Maged5
PMCID: PMC11373790  PMID: 39231197

Abstract

Shortening analgesic onset has been researched and it has been documented that prewarming epidural medications to body temperature (37°C) prior to administration increases medication efficacy. Our double-blind randomized controlled trial was designed to investigate if a lower degree of prewarming in providers’ pockets could achieve similar results without the need of a bedside incubator. A total of 136 parturients were randomized into either the pocket-warmed group or the room temperature group to receive 10 mL of 0.125% bupivacaine with 2 μg/mL fentanyl epidural bolus at either the 27.8 ±1.7°C or 22.1 ±1.0°C temperatures, respectively. Primary outcome, time to analgesic onset (verbal rating scale pain score ≤ 3) was recorded in 0-, 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 30-, and 60-minutes intervals. It was observed that the pocket-warming group (n = 64) and room temperature group (n = 72) had no significant difference of analgesic onset time (median 8 vs. 6.2 minutes; p = 0.322). The incidence of adverse events such as hypotension, fever (≥ 38°C), nausea, vomiting, and number of top-off epidural boluses, as well as patient satisfaction rates and mode of delivery, were not significantly different between the groups as well. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings and explore the impact of different temperatures on analgesic onset time as well as the logistical issues associated with their clinical implementations.

Introduction

Labor epidural analgesia (LEA) is a widely accepted practice and is a safe and effective method to control pain during labor, usually taking only 10–20 minutes for analgesic onset to occur [1]. To achieve more rapid onset of LEA, researchers and physicians have tried strategies such as utilizing faster-acting local anesthetics such as chloropropane, employing higher concentration agents, adding various adjuvants such as sodium bicarbonate, or using other neuraxial approaches such as combined-spinal epidural and dural puncture epidural [2]. Warming the initial dose of epidural medications to 37°C prior to administration has been studied as well, and it was shown to shorten the onset of action of the medication by more than 5 minutes without lowering its analgesic properties [3]. However, the use of expensive incubators to warm controlled substances in labor and delivery rooms may not be practical in every clinical setting.

Could providers replicate this effect by prewarming the initial epidural doses in their pockets, albeit to a lesser temperature, to achieve a similar result? [4] If so, it would be expected to be less expensive and readily available to every obstetric anesthesia service.

Our null hypothesis is that there is no difference in onset of LEA between patients who receive either a pocket-warmed or room temperature bolus of bupivacaine with fentanyl.

Materials and methods

This is a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. The study protocol was approved by approval from our local IRB, Office of Responsible Research Practices (ORRP)—The Ohio State University in 2016 (Protocol ID: 2016H0153) and registered at ClinicalTrails.gov (NCT02912078). The principal investigator was changed on January 26, 2022. Written Informed Consents were obtained in all the study subjects. The primary outcome is onset time of Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) pain score ≤ 3 after the initial LEA dose. A total of 62 patients in each group would have 90% power to detect a 5-minute difference, using a one-way analysis of variance with α = 0.05. These estimates were based on an effect size of 0.42 (μ1 = 4, μ2 = 9, σ = 6) (NCSS Statistical Software. PASS 2016 (Power Analysis and Sample Size Software). NCSS, LLC, 2016). We intended to include 75 patients in each group (total estimated sample size of 150) to allow for patients that may not obtain adequate labor analgesia at any time after epidural placement and administration of medication. The number of patients was determined based on the sample size calculation as well as a 6.8% incidence of inadequate LEA that was previously reported at an academic center [3, 5]. Inclusion criteria included women requesting LEA with a single vertex presentation fetus at term, with either intact fetal membranes or membrane rupture <6 hours previously. Exclusion criteria included patients with chronic pain, allergies or significant adverse reactions to routinely used local anesthetics or opioids, a contraindication to epidural placement, a baseline temperature over 38°C, baseline VRS < 3, cervical dilation over 8 cm, or any patient that did not speak English, was incarcerated (to protect their autonomy), or less than 18 years of age.

Our research team was divided into unblinded and blinded personnel. After screening and enrolling patients, unblinded investigators used REDCap to randomize subjects. Block randomization with a block size of 6 was used as the randomization scheme. Both the study subjects and data collecting researchers were blinded from the study groups. A designated researcher collected temperature data alone, was blinded from all other data, and was not present in patients’ rooms. An unblinded anesthesiologist, was responsible for randomizing patients, administering medications, measuring temperatures, and subsequently reporting temperature data to the designated unblinded researcher without disclosing any other data. Finally, additional blinded team members were responsible for collecting all other data such as the primary and secondary outcomes. The study was conducted in individual labor and delivery rooms.

Syringes containing 10 mL epidural 0.125% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg/mL were pre-made, double capped with labeled expiration dates, and stored in the anesthesia workroom of the labor and delivery unit. The study medications were checked out ahead of time by investigating anesthesiologists and kept in the upper pockets of their surgical scrubs for at least 1 hour together with a 10 mL commercially available saline syringe in clear plastic bags. For the pocket warmed group, the medication temperature was obtained by measuring the accompanying saline syringe. For the room temperature group, medication temperature was recorded from a saline syringe stored on a shelf at the same altitude level in the same room. For both groups, disposable skin temperature sensors (accuracy ± 0.2 Celsius with maximum heating transient time 12 sec, DeRoyal Industries Inc, 200 DeBusk Lane, Powell, TN USA) with GE anesthesia monitors were used to measure temperature immediately following administration of epidural medications, and the peak temperatures were recorded after 30 sec.

After screening, parturients were randomized to receive epidural medications that had either been pocket warmed or stored at room temperature. The onset of adequate labor analgesia, defined as pain VRS ≤ 3, was assessed at 0-, 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 30-, and 60-minutes (the final VRS assessment) post initial epidural dose inside of the labor and delivery room. Secondary outcomes included shivering, nausea, vomiting, temperature > 38°C, hypotension, number of top-off epidural boluses, mode of delivery, and overall patient satisfaction assessed in a 0–100 scale via interview and chart reviews within 24 hours of delivery, the end point of the study.

Statistical analysis

Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized for the two study groups using appropriate descriptive statistics. Means with standard deviations or medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) were used for continuous variables, and frequencies and proportions were used for categorical variables. Comparisons between the room temperature and pocket warming groups included maternal demographics, gestational age, pregnancy history, mode of delivery, analgesic onset, VRS pain scores, and other outcomes. Categorical variables were compared between groups using either a Chi-square test or a Fisher’s Exact test, and continuous variables were compared using either a two-sample t-test or a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. The primary outcome of analgesic onset time was presented as median and IQR and compared between groups using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. The incidence of VRS score ≤ 3/10 within 15 minutes was summarized using frequencies and proportions and compared between groups using a Chi-square test. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to evaluate differences in VRS pain scores between room temperature and pocket warming groups for the initial 60 minutes after epidural placement. Group and time were included as fixed effects in the model, and patients were included as a random effect to account for the correlation between repeated measures on the same patient. Compound symmetry was used as the covariance structure in the model given there was no correlation among repeated measure observations when evaluating the residual plots. Secondary outcomes (number of top-off epidural bolus, shivering, nausea and/or vomiting, hypotension, fever, and patient satisfaction, and mode of delivery) were compared between the two groups using either a Chi-square test, Fisher’s Exact test, two-sample t-test, or a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, where appropriate. Shapiro-Wilk test was hired to assess normality of the data. A value of P less than 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. Statistical analyses and plots were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc.; Cary, North Carolina, USA).

Results

The study was conducted between November 2016 to August 2023. A total of 149 patients were consented and subsequently enrolled in the study, however 13 patients were excluded due to not meeting full inclusion criteria (n = 1), meeting one or more exclusion criteria (n = 2), having a baseline VRS < 3 (n = 4), having a cervical dilation over 8cm (n = 1), randomization error (n = 2), or due to a procedural deviation such as having a failed epidural that required replacement (n = 3). Therefore, a total of 136 women were analyzed. Of all eligible participants, 64 women were randomized to the pocket warming group, and 72 women were randomized to the room temperature group. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow diagram is shown in Fig 1 [6].

Fig 1. CONSORT flow diagram for patients enrolled in the study.

Fig 1

n, number of participants; LEA, labor epidural analgesia; VRS: Verbal Rating Score.

The two groups were demographically not statistical differences between race, age, BMI, gestational age, previous history of epidurals for laboring pain, cervical dilation at initiation of labor analgesia, and initial VRS pain score prior to epidural administration (Table 1). It was determined that the pocket warmed epidural (27.8±1.7°C) was on average 5.7°C higher than the room temperature epidural (22.1±1.0°C). The study medications were observed to reach their maximal temperature following one hour of pocket warming, with any additional duration of warming not being associated with significant increases in medication temperature (P = 0.405, Fig 2).

Table 1. Demographic summary by group assignment.

Variable Room Temp. (n = 72) Pocket Warming (n = 64) P Values
Age (mean (SD)) 31.6 (5.3) 30 (4.8) 0.067
Race
White or Caucasian (n (%)) 55 (76) 47 (73) 0.697
Black or African American (n (%)) 13 (18) 15 (23) 0.525
Asian (n (%)) 3 (4) 0 (0) 0.247
Body Mass Index (kg/m2, mean (SD)) 32.6 (7.1) 33.1 (6.5) 0.665
Gestational Age (weeks, mean (SD)) 39.5 (0.7) 39.5 (0.8) 0.971
History of Labor Epidural in Prior Pregnancy, (n (%)) 0.944
Multiparas 9 (13) 9 (14)
Nulliparas 30 (42) 25 (39)
Gravidity (median [IQR])* 2 [1, 4] 2 [1, 2] 0.023
Cervical Dilation at Initiation of Labor Analgesia (cm, median [IQR])* 4 [3, 4] 4 [2.5, 5] 0.668
Initial Pain Score (VRS, median [IQR])* 7 [5.8, 8] 7 [6, 8] 0.432

* the data was non-normal distribution by Shapiro-Wilk test

Fig 2. Association of the temperature of the study medications and the lengths of their pocket warming.

Fig 2

°C, Celsius.

Legends n, numbers; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; VRS, Verbal Rating Score

Shown on Table 2, the two groups were observed to have insignificant difference of analgesic onset when dichotomized by their median time required to reach a VRS score ≤ 3/10 or when dichotomized by a VRS score ≤ 3/10 in the first 15 minutes.

Table 2. The primary outcomes between room temperature and pocket warming groups.

Variable Room Temp. (n = 72) Pocket Warming (n = 64) P Values
Analgesic onset (minutes)
Median [IQR] 6.2 [4, 15] 8 [4.1, 16] 0.322
Mean (SD)* 10.3 (11.5) 12.3 (12.4)
VRS score ≤ 3/10 within 15 minutes (n (%)) 59 (82) 50 (78) 0.457

*the data was non-normal distribution by Shapiro-Wilk test

Legends: n, numbers; IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation; VRS, Verbal Rating Score

In Mixed Effect Regression Analysis, no difference was detected in pain scores between pocket warming and room temperature groups at any time points after initial bolus: (overall p-value group*time = 0.418) [mean difference (95% CI), p-value—0 min: 0.2 (-0.5, 1.0), P = 0.547; 5 min: 0.6 (-0.1, 1.4), P = 0.112; 10 min: 0.2 (-0.6, 1.0), P = 0.338] (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Verbal rating score for pain over time in minutes for the initial 60 minutes after epidural placement.

Fig 3

VRS, Verbal Rating Score.

The secondary outcomes (incomplete LEA, shivering, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, fever, patient satisfaction, and mode of delivery) did not differ significantly between the groups (Table 3).

Table 3. The secondary outcomes between room temperature and pocket warming groups.

Variable, n (%) Room Temp. (n = 72) Pocket Warming (n = 64) P Values
Top-off epidural bolus (n (%)) 31 (43) 23 (36) 0.397
Shivering (n (%)) 26 (36) 20 (31) 0.55
Nausea and/or Vomiting (n (%)) 12 (17) 12 (19) 0.75
Hypotension (SBP ≤ 100, n (%)) 5 (7) 4 (6) 0.871
Fever (Temp >38°C, (n (%)) 3 (4) 1 (2) 0.623
Patient Satisfaction (%, median [IQR]) * 100 [100, 100] 100 [100, 100] 0.903
Mode of delivery (n (%)) 0.692
Cesarean delivery 16 (22) 10 (16)
Instrumental delivery 1 (1) 1 (2)
Spontaneous vaginal delivery 55 (76) 53 (83)

*the data was non-normal distribution by Shapiro-Wilk test

Legend: n, numbers; SBP, systolic blood pressure; Temp, temperature; IQR, interquartile range

Discussion

Absence of significantly different analgesic onset time from the initial epidural dose was observed in both the pocket warmed (27.8°C) and room temperature group (22.1°C). The results were analyzed with comparisons of median onset time, incidence of VRS score ≤ 3 within 15 minutes, and VRS for pain over time in minutes for the initial 60 minutes after epidural in Mix Effectiveness Analysis. Additionally, secondary outcomes were not statistically significant either.

These findings differed from the findings in a previous study conducted by Sviggum and et al. [3]. The observed difference in the intervention temperature, 37°C in the previous study vs. 27.8°C in this study may play an important role. This is most likely because the temperature of the medication was not warm enough to elicit any significant difference in outcomes. An acceptable temperature, 37°C, may only be attainable through the use of an incubator rather than through the use of providers’ pockets, which only warmed medication to 27.8°C on average. Notably, pocket warming medications longer than 1 hour did not result in a higher temperature. This raises the question of what temperature level will result in a significant difference in onset of LEA, and whether the method used to achieve such a temperature could be implemented in a feasible and widely accessible manner.

Likewise, another potential explanation for the difference in results between our findings and those of Sviggum’s may be due to the initial dose size. While the same medication was used in both studies, Sviggum used 20mL (as compared to 10mL in this study) which is capable of carrying more heat and would be expected to have a quicker onset time either due to higher drug mass or its heating capacity if the temperature were to play a role [7]. Despite using the same definition for onset time as Sviggum et al., our median analgesic onset time was 6.2 (IQR 4, 15) minutes for the room temperature group, which was quicker than Sviggum’s’ room temperature onset time of 16.0 ± 10.5 min [3]. In addition, the analgesic onset time in both of our study groups was shorter than 9.2 ± 4.7 min, which was the mean onset time in their prewarmed (37°C) group. It is noted that the analysis methods are different from each other. Time data is usually skewed, especially in small studies. We used and reported median and interquartile description with Wilcoxon Rank Sum test accordingly for comparisons after confirmation of its non-normal distribution with a Shapiro-Wilk test. Interestingly, our mean time ± SD in minutes for the room temperature and pocket warming groups were 10.3 ± 11.5 vs 12.3 ± 12.4, respectively. As such, our routinely used room temperature medications would only take one minute longer of onset than the 37°C solutions if so [3]. It must also be acknowledged that, despite using the same time intervals as were used in previous studies to collect VRS scores, the true LEA onset time is difficult to obtain. Uterine contractions are not continuous and analgesic onset occurs gradually over time rather than at an easily measurable point. Our reporting of the incidence of VRS ≤ 3/10 in the first 15 minutes, the cut off based on Sviggum’s study, is to attempt to minimize this uncertainty.

Nevertheless, our study did confirm that warming epidural medication to a mean temperature of 27.8°C prior to administration did not pose any harm to parturients with respect to our measured secondary outcomes, i.e. their body temperature, incidences of hypotension, shivering, nausea, vomiting, inadequate LEA, and mode of delivery. This is similar to what has been shown in the previous study [3].

There are several limitations in our study, especially when considering that it took more than 7 years from protocol approval to ultimately finish enrolling patients. During the study period, clinical practice changed over time, one example being that our unit introduced the programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) pumps in late 2019. Several outcome improvements have been documented after the same PIEB pumps were employed at other institutes [8]. However, the PIEB pump is designed to improve the maintenance of LEA, rather than alter the initiation of LEA which was the primary focus of our study. The primary difference between the two pumps is that the first dose of 10 mL 0.0625% bupivacaine with 2 μg/mL fentanyl starts to be delivered 45 minutes after our initial (study) dose over 5 minutes via the PIEB pumps whereas the same amount of the same medications started to be delivered at the rate of 10 mL/h over 60 minutes evenly via the previous continuous infusion pumps. Patients were not allowed to give themselves patient-controlled epidural analgesia bolus in the study period, i.e. the first 60 minutes. Therefore, this practice change did not change the total amount of medications administered in the study period. Presumably, if it did alter study results, it would occur in both groups evenly without impacts on overall findings. It is also true that our principal investigator changed over time as well as our research team members. The impact of these changes seem very minimal given the fact that the middle trial analysis, mainly based on the data with the old pumps and the previous research team, supported our presumptions [9]. Secondly, we assumed the room temperature was consistently 20°C but it was 22.1 ± 1.0°C by measurement, which resulted in us underestimating the temperature difference between the two groups. The study sample size calculation was impacted consequently. Therefore, we could not rule out the possibility of type II error for our study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the pocket warming (27.8°C) of bupivacaine with fentanyl did not result in a shorter onset of analgesia when compared with that of room temperature (22.1°C) bupivacaine with fentanyl. Further study is needed to confirm the previous findings with more commonly used initial dose of bupivacaine with fentanyl or/and practical logistics, especially medication stabilities and their optimal storage period before clinical utilization.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. CONSORT checklist.

(DOC)

pone.0309515.s001.doc (219.5KB, doc)
S1 Data. Pocket warming data for analysis.

(XLSX)

pone.0309515.s002.xlsx (29.9KB, xlsx)
S1 File. Pocket warming research protocol.

(PDF)

pone.0309515.s003.pdf (244.5KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul, MS, MPH; Meghan Cook, MD; Harriet Washington, MD; Robert Small, MD; Goran Ristev, MD; Blair H. Hayes, MD; Jason Hoang, BA, McKenna Carr, BS and Jeremy Reeves, BA for their support, writing and editing collaboration that greatly improved our research project and manuscript (without them, it would not be possible to accomplish this project).

Abbreviations

LEA

Labor epidural analgesia

VRS

Verbal Rating Scale

IQR

interquartile ranges

N

number of participants

%

percentage

CI

Confidence interval

SD

standard deviation

PIEB

programmed intermittent epidural bolus

MDSR

Medical Student Research

FAER

Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the MDSR Roessler Scholarship from The Ohio State University College of Medicine to Tyler M. Balon and Justin J. Abbott, and by the Foundation of Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER)'s Medical Student Anesthesia Research Fellowships to Johnny McKeown.

References

  • 1.Jones L, Othman M, Dowswell T, Alfirevic Z, Gates S, Newburn M, et al. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2012;(3). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chau A, Tsen L. Neuraxial labor analgesia: Initiation techniques. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2022;36:3–15. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2022.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sviggum H, Yacoubian S, Liu X, Tsen L. The effect of bupivacaine with fentanyl temperature on initiation and maintenance of labor epidural analgesia: a randomized controlled study. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia. 2015;24:15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2014.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Coffman JC, Fiorini K, Mathew P, Small RH. Pocket warming of epidural medications. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia. 2015;24:290–291. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2015.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pan PH, Bogard T, Owen M. Incidence and characteristics of failures in obstetric neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia: a retrospective analysis of 19,259 deliveries. International journal of obstetric anesthesia. 2004;13:227–233. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2004.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637–639. doi: 10.1001/jama.276.8.637 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chan L, Lee B, Kee WN. A randomised double-blinded controlled trial of the effect of diluent volume on the efficacy of a single dose of epidural ropivacaine for labour analgesia. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia. 2006;15:201–205. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2005.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Carvalho B, George RB, Cobb B, McKenzie C, Riley ET. Implementation of programmed intermittent epidural bolus for the maintenance of labor analgesia. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2016;123:965–971. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang J LH, Bush MJ, Periel L, Hoang J, Coffman J, Palettas M, et al. Pocket Warming of Medications to shorten onset of labor epidural analgesia: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. Ohio Society of Anesthesiologists 83 rd Annual Meeting, Columbus Ohio 2022.

Decision Letter 0

Mahmoud Mohammed Alseoudy

26 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-05704Pocket Warming of Bupivacaine with Fentanyl to Shorten Onset of Labor Epidural Analgesia: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Clinical TrialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 10 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mahmoud Mohammed Alseoudy, M.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"1) Medical Student Research (MDSR) Roessler Scholarship from The Ohio State University – College of Medicine: 

Winters: 

Tyler M. Balon: data collection, drafting

Justin J. Abbott: data collection

URL: https://medicine.osu.edu/research/opportunities/mdsr-resources/apply-for-medical-student-research-scholarship

2) The Foundation of Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER)'s Medical Student Anesthesia Research Fellowships

Winner: Johnny McKeown, data collection, drafting;

URL: https://www.asahq.org/faer/programs/medicalstudentfellowships/summerfellowships"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted which aimed to investigate if prewarming of epidural medications in providers’ pockets reduced time to analgesic onset compared to the administration of medications at room temperature. The two groups had similar time to analgesic onset and adverse event rates.

Minor revisions:

1- Line 110: Include the full details for the sample size justification. The power calculation should include: (1) the estimated outcomes in each group; (2) the α (type I) error level; (3) the statistical power (or the β (type II) error level); (4) the target sample size, (5) the statistical testing method, and (6) for continuous outcomes, the standard deviation of the measurements.

2- Line 121: If block randomization was used, state the block size.

3- Line 154: Indicate the underlying covariance structure used in the mixed effects models and the criteria for selecting it.

4- The standard statistical term for average is mean.

5- Table 1: Provide only one p-value for comparing race. The one from the overall chi-square or Fisher’s exact test.

6- Line 208: Replace the two instances of the term “stratified” because it has a specific statistical meaning in relation to the randomization process which has not been conducted in the study. Perhaps “dichotomized” is a more descriptive term.

7- Line 216: Provide the overall p-value for testing the interaction effect of group by time. If the interaction effect is significant, provide an interpretation of the results, but do not test main effects because the tests for main effects are uninteresting in light of significant interactions. If interaction effects are non-significant, drop the interaction effects from the model and test the main effects. Determining which results to present when testing interactions is often a multi-step process.

8- Line 223: For clarification, indicate that the secondary outcomes (rate of adverse events) did not differ significantly between the groups.

Reviewer #2: I would like to comment on the long period of duration and unnecessary delay.

The anesthesiologist was not blind and this may expose the trial to selection bias.

I would prefer that there was a control group with no warming.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Sep 4;19(9):e0309515. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309515.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 May 2024

Minor revisions:

1- Line 110: Include the full details for the sample size justification. The power calculation should include: (1) the estimated outcomes in each group; (2) the α (type I) error level; (3) the statistical power (or the β (type II) error level); (4) the target sample size, (5) the statistical testing method, and (6) for continuous outcomes, the standard deviation of the measurements.

Addressed in the manuscript. “A total of 62 patients in each group would have 90% power to detect a 5-minute difference, using a one-way analysis of variance with α=0.05. These estimates were based on an effect size of 0.42 (µ1=4, µ2=9, σ=6). We intend to include 75 patients in each group (total estimated sample size of 150) to allow for patients that may not obtain adequate labor analgesia at any time after epidural placement and administration of medication. The number of patients was determined based on the sample size calculation as well as a 6.8% incidence of inadequate LEA that was previously reported at an academic center.”

2- Line 121: If block randomization was used, state the block size.

Addressed in the manuscript – block size of 6 was used.

3- Line 154: Indicate the underlying covariance structure used in the mixed effects models and the criteria for selecting it.

Addressed in the manuscript – compound symmetry was the covariance structure used in the mixed effects model. No particular pattern in the correlation among repeated measure observations was seen when evaluating the residual plots.

4- The standard statistical term for average is mean.

Addressed in the manuscript.

5- Table 1: Provide only one p-value for comparing race. The one from the overall chi-square or Fisher’s exact test.

Each category of race was captured as a separate variable and the proportions and p-values presented are the “Yes” vs “No” comparisons for each race category.

6- Line 208: Replace the two instances of the term “stratified” because it has a specific statistical meaning in relation to the randomization process which has not been conducted in the study. Perhaps “dichotomized” is a more descriptive term.

Addressed in the manuscript.

7- Line 216: Provide the overall p-value for testing the interaction effect of group by time. If the interaction effect is significant, provide an interpretation of the results, but do not test main effects because the tests for main effects are uninteresting in light of significant interactions. If interaction effects are non-significant, drop the interaction effects from the model and test the main effects. Determining which results to present when testing interactions is often a multi-step process.

Addressed in the manuscript – The overall p-value for the interaction effect of group by time was 0.418 and it was dropped from the model. Time was the only significant main effect (p<0.001).

8- Line 223: For clarification, indicate that the secondary outcomes (rate of adverse events) did not differ significantly between the groups.

Addressed in the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter for Reviewer Comments.docx

pone.0309515.s004.docx (14.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

23 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-05704R1Pocket Warming of Bupivacaine with Fentanyl to Shorten Onset of Labor Epidural Analgesia: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Clinical TrialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please respond to all reviewers comments

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Mohamed Maged, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: To authors,

First of all, I want to thank authors for this interesting review and for their efforts.

Title: Well written.

Abstract: well written

Background: is well written.

Methods: Thanks to authors as methods is well written in details.

Results:

• The data is statistically analyzed and expressed well.

• Tables and figures are expressed the data well.

Discussion: well written and relevant to the results of the study.

Conclusion: expressed the finding well and well written.

Best regard

Reviewer

Reviewer #4: i acknowledge the authors efforts in conducting this long duration trial. the subject is interested and of clinical importance which was conducted to explore if pocket warming would achieve similar results as body temperature warmed medications as compared to room temperature medications, however i have the following comments:

1- first it is better to describe your results ( analgesia onset) by absence of significant difference between both groups and not describing them as similar results because there was an observed difference in favor of room temperature group. - please correct it in abstract, results and discussion.

2- regarding the study outcomes, they needs more clarification regarding their definition- time points- end time point- method of assessment. for example the onset time was mentioned to be assessed for 60 minutes which doesn't reflect the clinical practice. onset of block is usually assessed every 5min within 30 min after the block if no adequate response extra-dose will be added. the time-point (60min) for follow up of the VRS score not the onset only.

and what did authors do if the analgesia target was not achieved .. they didn't exclude such cases.

when and how the rescue epidural doses were given? and why this outcome not reported in the results!

how did you assess the patient satisfaction?

are skin temperature sensors valid to measure the syringe temperature? mention your reference

3- as regard sample size, mention the used software to calculate the sample size,

the reference of the effect size, and the reference of The minimum clinically important difference (5min)

4- as regard the statistical analysis; mention the used test of normality

how did you perform the subgroup analysis in the pocket warming group to evaluate the durations of warming as reported in results

5- in Results; in CONSORT chart, if authors performed allocation before giving the epidural, so failed procedure should be inserted in the drop-out cases that didn't receive the allocated intervention.

illustrate the method of the duration of pocket warming and patient satisfaction and how they were presented in results

please revise the attached file.

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript.

This study investigated whether prewarming epidural medications in providers' pockets (to approximately 27.8°C) can shorten the onset time of labor epidural analgesia compared to room temperature medications (22.1°C). The primary outcome, median time to analgesic onset, and secondary outcomes, including incidences of adverse events such as hypotension, fever, nausea, vomiting, the number of rescue epidural boluses, and patient satisfaction rates, showed no significant difference between the groups.

It was interesting but I have some questions.

One of the most important methodological flaws of this study is the inconsistent temperature measurement of bupivacaine.

The study relied on indirect methods to estimate the temperature of the epidural solution. The temperature of the accompanying saline syringe was used to approximate the temperature of the bupivacaine solution. Direct measurement of the medication temperature immediately before administration would have provided more accurate and reliable data. This inconsistency may have influenced the study outcomes and should be addressed for greater accuracy.

Please discuss how the temperature was consistently maintained during the pocket warming and any potential variations observed.

The manuscript also does not provide detailed information specifically describing the aseptic methods used during the storage of solutions in the pocket. It is critical to ensure that proper aseptic techniques are followed to prevent contamination and infection. A detailed description of these methods should be included to strengthen the study’s validity.

It is known that higher temperatures can cause changes in the density and viscosity of bupivacaine, which in turn affects its cephalad spread compared to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Studies such as Anesth Analg. 2006 Jan;102(1):272-5 have shown that a decrease in the density and viscosity of bupivacaine relative to CSF can impact its spread. This manuscript should discuss how these temperature-induced changes might influence the onset time of epidural analgesia, which is not administered intrathecally. Understanding these effects can provide insights into the observed results and help refine the study design.

By addressing these points, the manuscript will provide a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation of the impact of prewarming bupivacaine on the onset time of labor epidural analgesia.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Alshaimaa Abdel Fattah Kamel

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: revision to authors.docx

pone.0309515.s005.docx (14.9KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-05704_R1_15 JUl.pdf

pone.0309515.s006.pdf (3.2MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 4;19(9):e0309515. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309515.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 Aug 2024

Dear Dr. Maged,

I am writing to address your comments and those of the reviewers, particularly Reviewer 4 and Reviewer 6, as detailed as attached file titled "Rebuttal letter for Reviewer Comments_31July2024.docx". All the line information is based on the marked version.

Additionally, I have reorganized the parameter "mode of delivery" from Table 1 to Table 3 and have updated the corresponding text for better presentation.

For clarity, our responses are prefixed with "RESPONSE" and highlighted in purple.

Please let us know if you have any further questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Ling-Qun Hu, MD

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter for Reviewer Comments_31July2024.docx.pdf

pone.0309515.s007.pdf (142.6KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 2

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

14 Aug 2024

Pocket Warming of Bupivacaine with Fentanyl to Shorten Onset of Labor Epidural Analgesia: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

PONE-D-24-05704R2

Dear Dr. Hu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Mohamed Maged, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: the revised version of the manuscript is much improved.

The authors have addressed all my comments for this paper and answered the technical questions I have for this method. Therefore, I have no further comments.

Reviewer #6: Thank you for addressing the response regarding the lack of references and limited data on the impact of local anesthetic temperature on epidural onset. While I acknowledge the authors’ point that there is limited direct evidence on this topic within the context of epidural analgesia, I believe it is crucial to explore and discuss this aspect further. The Braz J Anesthesiol (2021) study provides a valuable perspective by suggesting that temperature changes may influence not only the intrathecal spread of anesthetics but also their direct action on spinal nerve roots.

Previous studies have proposed hypotheses that could be relevant to the current investigation. For instance, increasing the temperature of a local anesthetic decreases its dissociation constant, which in turn increases the unionized fraction of the drug. This change enhances lipid solubility, potentially leading to greater membrane permeation and more effective nerve blockade. Furthermore, the vasoconstrictive effects of cooling, which reduce the amplitude and increase the duration and latency of action potentials, could explain why cooling might delay onset. Conversely, warming could mitigate these effects, promoting faster recovery of inactivated fibers and potentially accelerating the onset of anesthesia.

Given these considerations, I recommend that the authors refer to studies such as Rosenberg and Heavner (1980), Sviggum et al. (2015), Kamaya et al. (1983), Lee et al. (2012), and Pappone (1980) to support a more detailed hypothesis. If space constraints prevent a full discussion within the main text, these points should at least be acknowledged in the limitations section to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the study’s context and the potential physiological implications of temperature variations on local anesthetic efficacy. Addressing this could significantly strengthen the manuscript by connecting existing knowledge with the current study’s findings and offering a more nuanced interpretation of the results.

1. Rosenberg P, Heavner J. Temperature-dependent nerve-blocking action of lidocaine and halothane. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1980;24:314-320.

2. Sviggum H, Yacoubian S, Liu X, et al. The effect of bupivacaine with fentanyl temperature on initiation and maintenance of labor epidural analgesia: a randomized controlled study. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015;24:15-21.

3. Kamaya H, Hayes JJ, Ueda I. Dissociation constants of local anesthetics and their temperature dependence. Anesth Analg. 1983;62:1025-1030.

4. Lee R, Kim YM, Choi EM, et al. Effect of warmed ropivacaine solution on onset and duration of axillary block. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012;62:52-56.

5. Pappone PA. Voltage-clamp experiments in normal and denervated mammalian skeletal muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1980;306:377-410.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #6: Yes: Ki Tae Jung

**********

Acceptance letter

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

23 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-05704R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hu,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Ahmed Mohamed Maged

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. CONSORT checklist.

    (DOC)

    pone.0309515.s001.doc (219.5KB, doc)
    S1 Data. Pocket warming data for analysis.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0309515.s002.xlsx (29.9KB, xlsx)
    S1 File. Pocket warming research protocol.

    (PDF)

    pone.0309515.s003.pdf (244.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter for Reviewer Comments.docx

    pone.0309515.s004.docx (14.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: revision to authors.docx

    pone.0309515.s005.docx (14.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-05704_R1_15 JUl.pdf

    pone.0309515.s006.pdf (3.2MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter for Reviewer Comments_31July2024.docx.pdf

    pone.0309515.s007.pdf (142.6KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES