Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jan 30;20(1):e0314968. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314968

Effects of intraoperative hypothermia on patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Tashi Penjore 1, Maliwan Oofuvong 1,*, Sunisa Chatmongkolchart 1, Chanatthee Kitisiripant 1, Rongrung Rueangchira-urai 1,#, Jaranya Leeratiwong 1,#
Editor: Marco Clementi2
PMCID: PMC11781613  PMID: 39883613

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to explore the association between intraoperative hypothermia and outcomes in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 2048 adult laparoscopic surgery patients treated between 2020 and 2021 was conducted at Songklanagarind Hospital, Thailand. Intraoperative hypothermia, defined as a core temperature below 36°C, was recorded as either one or more than one episode. Patient demographics, clinical information and postoperative outcomes were extracted from the hospital information system. The outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative cardiac arrhythmias, postoperative oxygen requirement, length of post-anesthetic care unit (PACU) stay, and length of hospital stay. Univariate and multivariate logistic/linear regression models were fit to assess the association between hypothermia and outcomes, presented as odds ratio (OR) or beta-coefficient (β) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

The incidence of intraoperative hypothermia was 34.9%, with 688 experiencing one episode and 27 experiencing multiple episodes. On multivariate analysis, patients with one and more than one episode of hypothermia had an increased risk of intraoperative cardiac arrhythmia compared to normothermic patients (OR [95%CI]: 1.67[1.24,2.25] and 3.65[1.53,8.74], respectively, P<0.001). Normothermic patients and hypothermic patients with more than one-episode had a higher odds of postoperative oxygen requirement compared to hypothermic patients with only one episode (OR [95%CI]:1.32[1.02,1.7] and 2.64[1.1,6.32], respectively, P = 0.019). Hypothermic patients with one and more than one-episode also had longer PACU stays compared to normothermic patients (β[95%CI]:3.82[1.34,6.29] and 12.43[2.29,22.57] minutes, respectively, P = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the other outcomes.

Conclusions

Intraoperative hypothermia in laparoscopic surgery is associated with a higher likelihood of intraoperative cardiac arrhythmias, prolonged PACU stay and higher postoperative oxygen requirement. Further research and prospective studies are warranted to validate these results and develop strategies to manage intraoperative hypothermia effectively.

Introduction

The effect of anesthesia impairing thermoregulatory control and cold environments inside the operating theater can cause surgical patients to become hypothermic with incidences ranging from 45% to 70% [1, 2]. Inadvertent intraoperative hypothermia is usually defined as a temperature below 36°C [3, 4]. Numerous studies have identified risk factors of hypothermia, including age, body mass index (BMI), surgery time, intraoperative irrigation, intraoperative infusion, blood transfusion and operating room temperature [3, 5]. Hypothermia in open surgery can cause surgical site infections [4, 68], coagulopathy and increased transfusion requirement [79], increased requirement of analgesics, altered drug metabolism and adverse cardiac events [4, 8]. In general, hypothermia is mostly associated with open surgery due to large visceral exposure leading to heat and moisture loss, but it can also occur in laparoscopic surgery. The incidence of hypothermia during laparoscopic surgery ranges from 29% to 90% [10, 11] and the risk factors are male [12], longer duration of anesthesia [1315], use of dry CO2 for insufflation [1315], basal body temperature ≤ 36.1°C [16], operating room temperature ≤ 22°C [16] and volume of irrigation fluids [10]. Nevertheless, the literature on the consequences of hypothermia during laparoscopic surgery is limited with only a few studies addressing this issue and having inconsistent results [1719]. Given these circumstances, our study specifically examined the consequences of intraoperative hypothermia during the laparoscopic surgery.

Materials and methods

This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand on 11 July 2022 (REC 65-226-8-9). Since this is a retrospective study, informed consent was waived by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University. The data were accessed on 12 July 2022 after the Ethics Committee’s approval. All data were fully anonymized before being accessed by the investigators. All patient, anesthesia, and surgery-related information were retrieved from the anesthetic recording system and Hospital Information System (HIS) of Songklanagarind hospital.

The data collection was performed solely by the principal researcher (TP) and research assistants (RR and JL). The information was treated as confidential, known only to the research team. The DOI link by Protocols.io is dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.14egn6d2yl5d/v1.

Study population and sampling

This was a single center retrospective cohort study and included all adult patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery at Songklanagarind Hospital, Prince of Songkla University from January 2019 to December 2021. The inclusion criteria were patients aged >18 years who underwent laparoscopic surgery and an American society of anesthesia (ASA) classification I-III. Cases were excluded if they had open surgery, if their temperature was not monitored, if they experienced intraoperative hyperthermia (defined as core temperature >37.8°C) or if they were intubated and on a ventilator prior to surgery.

Standard operating procedure

All study patients had surgery in the regular operating rooms and were provided with surgical drapes and blankets. All patients received general anesthesia. The induction agents were either propofol or thiopental depending on anesthesiologist staff. Fentanyl or morphine was the narcotics used the most. Cisatracurium or rocuronium was the neuromuscular blocking agent of choice. Tracheal intubation was done in all the cases and anesthesia was maintained with volatile anesthetic agents, narcotics, and neuromuscular blocking agents as per the choice of the anesthesiologist staff. All patients were provided with a warming mattress and forced air warming system before the start of surgery. Temperatures were measured by nurse anesthetists using various routes and were recorded in the patients chart every 30 minutes (S1 Fig). Active interventions such as force air warmer with further transfusion line warmers, along with other measures, were used if patients experienced a drop in temperature.

Data collection

All necessary data including patient-related factors such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), ASA classification, and surgery-related factors such as type (general or gynecologic), duration, and classification (emergency or elective), were collected from the HIS. Anesthesia-related factors including the technique and the type of agents used intraoperatively, were also recorded from the HIS. The lowest temperature measured anytime during the intraoperative period was considered for measuring hypothermia. The core body temperature was measured using the esophageal, nasopharynx, tympanic membrane, or rectal temperature. Since temperatures measured in the ear have been shown to be less accurate compared to rectal measurements, with a potential error of less than 0.5°C [11], we adjusted the recorded temperatures by adding 0.5°C to correct for this discrepancy.

Variables of the study

Dependent and independent variables for consequences of hypothermia

Independent variables and potential confounders included patient characteristics: age (years), sex, weight (in kg), height (in meters), BMI (kg/m2), ASA classification (I-III), surgery-related variables and technique of anesthesia. The main exposure variable was intraoperative hypothermia, defined as the core temperature <36°C. The number of episodes of hypothermia during the intraoperative period were classified as either one or more than one. The severity of intraoperative hypothermia in our setting was classified as mild hypothermia (34 to <36°C), moderate hypothermia (32 to <34°C), and severe hypothermia (<32°C). The dependent variables were intraoperative and postoperative cardiac arrhythmias, postoperative oxygen requirement, post-anesthetic care unit (PACU) admission, length of PACU stay, and length of hospital stay.

Definition

Site of operation included gastrointestinal, gynecological, genito-urinary surgery and others which included transabdominal preperitoneal repair hernia, adrenalectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Duration of surgery was defined as the time from induction of anesthesia to extubation (in minutes). Cardiac arrhythmias were defined as any abnormality from the normal sinus rhythm or normal rate including bradycardia, supraventricular tachycardia, and atrial fibrillation. Postoperative oxygen requirement was noted if the patient had utilized oxygen in the PACU or at the ward. Delayed awakening was defined if more than 20–30 minutes elapsed before the patient woke up after the end of anesthesia. Intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion (ml) was defined if a patient with hypothermia received blood transfusion either during the operation or after the operation. Length of postoperative hospital stay (in days) was defined as the time from surgery until discharge from hospital. Duration of hypothermia was defined as the period during which core body temperature was <36°C measured in 30 minute intervals. If within any 30 minute period, the body temperature fluctuated from normal to below 36°C or vice versa, 15 minutes was added to the total duration. Length of PACU stay (in minutes) was defined from the time from finishing the operation until discharge from recovery room.

Statistical analysis

Data were entered with Epidata (version 3.1). All variables were presented descriptively with mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range as appropriate for continuous variables, and frequency and percent for categorical variables. Unpaired Student’s t-tests or Wilcoxon’s rank sum tests were used to compare normally or non-normally distributed variables, respectively. The chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare categorical variables. Logistic regression and linear regression were used to determine the association between intraoperative hypothermia and the outcomes depending on the type of outcome. Variables with a P-value <0.1 from the univariate analyses were included in the multivariate regression models. We assessed the distribution of residuals from the linear model and, if it was not normal, we transformed the outcome by taking its logarithm. We also assessed the model for multicollinearity and homoscedasticity to satisfy linear assumptions. The model was then refined by sequential backward elimination of non-significant variables performed by the likelihood ratio test, providing the odds ratios (OR)/beta coefficient (β) and their 95% confidence intervals. We subsequently removed each variable with the highest P value and assessed the AIC value for that model. The model with the lowest AIC value as accepted as our final model. Factors were considered significant if their likelihood ratio test P values were < 0.05. The missing data were reported and automatically excluded in the analysis process.

Sample size calculations

The sample size calculation was performed based on a pilot study by reviewing the anesthetic records of laparoscopic surgery cases between January and December 2021 (115 hypothermia, 980 non-hypothermia) to achieve the primary objective under a power of 80% and a level of significance of 0.05. Based on the sample size formula for comparing two proportions, at least 2000 patients were required.

Results

Data were collected from 2200 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery between January 2019 and December 2022. We excluded 152 patients: 36 had open surgery, 74 did not have intraoperative temperature monitored, 33 had intraoperative hyperthermia, and 9 were ASA classification IV. Among the remaining 2,048 patients (S1 File), 714 (34.9%) experienced intraoperative hypothermia (Fig 1). The characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1.

Fig 1. Flow diagram of the study.

Fig 1

PACU = Post-anesthetic care unit.

Table 1. Baseline characteristic of the participants.

Variables Hypothermia P value
No (N = 1333) Yes (N = 715)
Male 346 (26) 387 (54.1) < 0.001
Age (years), median (IQR) 47 (37,63) 61 (49,70) < 0.001
Age group (year) < 0.001
18–49 729 (54.7) 182 (25.5)
50–65 332 (24.9) 253 (35.4)
>65 272 (20.4) 280 (39.2)
Body mass index (kg/m2), median (IQR) 24.9 (22,29.5) 24 (21.4,27) < 0.001
ASA Classification 0.002
I 114 (8.6) 34 (4.8)
II 841 (63.1) 494 (69.1)
III 378 (28.4) 187 (26.2)
Preoperative baseline temperature, median (IQR) 36.7 (36.6,36.9) 36.6 (36.5,36.8) < 0.001
Site of Surgery < 0.001
Gastrointestinal 775 (58.1) 507 (70.9)
Gynecology 445 (33.4) 99 (13.8)
Genitourinary 80 (6) 84 (11.7)
Others (adrenalectomy, hepatectomy, splenectomy pancreatectomy) 33 (2.5) 25 (3.5)
Timing < 0.001
Elective 1277 (95.8) 706 (98.7)
Emergency 56 (4.2) 9 (1.3)
Anesthesia duration (minutes), median (IQR) 170 (115,260) 200 (135,330) < 0.001
Underlying cardiovascular disease < 0.001
Hypertension 440 (33) 285 (39.9)
Other (heart failure, ischemic heart disease, arrhythmias) 155 (11.6) 109 (15.2)
Underlying respiratory disease < 0.001
Asthma 44 (3.3) 18 (2.5)
Obstructive sleep apnea 147 (11) 47 (6.6)
Others (pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, tuberculosis, COPD) 65 (4.9) 59 (8.3)
Underlying neurological disease 0.003
Cerebrovascular accident 42 (3.2) 31 (4.3)
Other (Parkinson’s, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy) 28 (2.1) 32 (4.5)
Underlying hematologic disease 0.031
Anemia 391 (29.3) 250 (35)
Coagulopathy 5 (0.4) 3 (0.4)
Underlying malignancy 319 (23.9) 274 (38.3) < 0.001
Underlying diabetes mellitus: 211 (15.8) 108 (15.1) 0.714
Underlying hypothyroidism 17 (1.3) 11 (1.5) 0.772
Underlying hyperthyroidism 11 (0.8) 7 (1) 0.915
Underlying dyslipidemia 418 (31.4) 273 (38.2) 0.002
Estimated blood loss median (IQR) 20 (10,50) 20 (10,100) 0.005
Route of temperature monitoring 0.334
Nasopharynx 1137 (85.3) 620 (86.7)
Esophagus 83 (6.2) 50 (7)
Tympanic membrane 110 (8.2) 44 (6.2)
Rectum/axilla 3 (0.2) 1 (0.1)

Notes: Data are presented as frequency (%) or median (interquartile range [IQR]) unless stated otherwise. ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists, COPD = Chronic obstructive lung disease.

From the total cases undergoing laparoscopic surgery, 733 (35.8%) were male and 1,315 (64.2%) were female. Among the 715 patients who experienced hypothermia, 387 (54.1%) were male and 328 (45.9%) were female. Patients with hypothermia was significantly older. The majority of the patients were classified as ASA class II. All other baseline characteristics were also statistically significant. The route of temperature monitoring was not different between the two groups. A comparison of outcomes between patients with normothermia and hypothermia are shown in S1 Table. Among the 715 hypothermic patients, 688 had only 1 episode and 27 had more than 1 episode (Table 2). The outcomes among episodes of hypothermia are shown in Table 3.

Table 2. Characteristics of patients with hypothermia (N = 715).

Characteristic Hypothermia
Nadir temperature (°C)
    Mean (SD) 35.6 (0.29)
    Median (IQR) 35.7 (35.5, 35.8)
Duration of hypothermia (minutes)
    Mean (SD) 80.5 (58.9)
    Median (IQR) 60 (45, 105)
Episode of hypothermia
    1 688 (96.2)
    2 24 (3.4)
    >2 3 (0.4)
Severity of hypothermia
    Mild (34 to <36°C) 715 (100%)

Note: Data are presented as frequency (%) unless stated otherwise. IQR Interquartile range, SD Standard deviation.

Table 3. Comparison of outcomes between patients with normothermia, one episode of hypothermia and more than one episode of hypothermia.

Outcome variable Normothermia
(N = 1333)
1 episode of hypothermia (N = 688) >1 episode of hypothermia (N = 27) P value
Intraoperative cardiac arrhythmias 109 (8.2) 108 (15.7) 8 (29.6) <0.001
Intraoperative blood transfusion 33 (2.5) 23 (3.3) 3 (11.1) 0.02
Volume of intraoperative blood transfusion (ml), median (IQR)
Mean (SD)

0 (0,0)
11.73 (91.12)

0 (0,0)
15.45 (115.1)

0 (0,0)
29.93 (155.1)

0.793
0.462
PACU stay 1323 (99.2) 675 (98.1) 25 (92.6) 0.001
Duration of PACU stay (minutes), median (IQR) 45 (35,60) 50 (40,65) 55 (45,75) <0.001
Delayed awakening 3 (0.2) 4 (0.6) 0 (0) 0.41
Shivering 29 (2.2) 17 (2.5) 0 (0) 0.667
Nausea/vomiting 151 (11.3) 72 (10.5) 2 (7.4) 0.703
Postoperative oxygen requirement 325 (24.4) 155 (22.5) 12 (44.4) 0.029
Duration of oxygen requirement (hrs), median (IQR) 15 (12,18) 16 (12,18) 18.5 (12.8,24) 0.242
Type of ventilator <0.001
Endotracheal intubation 12 (0.9) 14 (2) 3 (11.1)
NPPV 25 (1.9) 4 (0.6) 1 (3.7)
Postoperative ICU 13 (1) 11 (1.6) 5 (18.5) <0.001
Duration of ICU stay (days), median (IQR) 1 (1,2) 3 (2.5,4.5) 3 (2,3) 0.061
Duration of hospital stay (days), median (IQR) 4 (3,5) 4 (3,6) 7 (5.5,8) <0.001
Postoperative cardiac arrhythmia 2 (0.2) 2 (0.3) 0 (0) 0.773

Notes: Data are presented as frequency (%) or median (interquartile range [IQR]) unless stated otherwise. ICU = Intensive care unit, NPPV = Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, PACU = Post-anesthetic care unit, SD = Standard deviation.

Among the 1,333 normothermic patients, 109 (8.2%) experienced cardiac arrhythmias while among the 688 and 27 patients with one and more than one episode of hypothermia, 108 (15.7%) and 8 (29.6%) patients had cardiac arrhythmias, respectively. In normothermic patients, 33 (2.5%) required intraoperative blood transfusion, while patients with one and more than one episode of hypothermia, 23 (3.3%) and 3 (11.1%) patients, respectively, required intraoperative blood transfusion. Normothermic patients stayed in the PACU for an average of 45 minutes, whereas patients who experienced one and more than one episode of hypothermia had an average stay of 50 and 55 minutes, respectively. We found that 44.4% of patients with more than one episode of hypothermia required postoperative oxygen compared to 24.4% for normothermic patients and 22.4% for patients who experienced only one episode. Patients with more than one episode of hypothermia had a longer duration of hospital stay than the other two groups. There were no other significant differences between the three groups in terms of the other outcomes on univariate analysis. Even though the hypothermia group was related to a higher proportion of blood transfusion requirements, it was not statistically significant in the multivariate logistic regression model.

Intraoperative cardiac arrhythmia

From the multivariate logistic regression analysis shown in Table 4, hypothermic patients were significantly more likely to develop intraoperative cardiac arrhythmias after adjusting for age and underlying disease. Hypothermic patients with only one episode were 1.65 times more likely to experience intraoperative cardiac arrhythmias compared to normothermic patients (OR (95%CI);1.67(1.24,2.25), P<0.001) and patients with more than one episode of hypothermia were three times as likely (OR (95%CI);3.65(1.53,8.74), P<0.001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed which demonstrated an area under ROC curve of 0.669 (S2 Fig), indicating a fair to moderate discriminatory power in predicting intraoperative cardiac arrhythmias based on presence and absence of intraoperative hypothermia.

Table 4. Final model of multivariate analysis for intraoperative cardiac arrhythmias.

Variables Crude OR
(95% CI)
Adjusted OR
(95% CI)
P (Wald’s test) P (LR-test)
Hypothermia episodes (ref. = normothermia) < 0.001
1 2.09 (1.57,2.78) 1.67 (1.24,2.25) < 0.001
>1 4.73 (2.02,11.05) 3.65 (1.53,8.74) 0.004
Age group, years (ref. = 18–49) < 0.001
50–65 2.12 (1.48,3.02) 1.76 (1.21,2.56) 0.003
>65 2.73 (1.93,3.86) 2.08 (1.39,3.1) < 0.001
Underlying cardiovascular disease (ref. = none) 0.013
Hypertension 1.73 (1.27,2.35) 1.46 (1.03,2.08) 0.035
Others (heart failure, ischemic heart disease, arrhythmias) 2.2 (1.48,3.26) 1.79 (1.19,2.69) 0.005
Hyperparathyroidism or hyperaldosteronism 0.58 (0.38,0.89) 0.47 (0.3,0.73) < 0.001 < 0.001

Notes: LR-test = likelihood ratio test. OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval.

Postoperative oxygen requirement

Postoperative oxygen requirement was significantly associated with hypothermia (P = 0.029) as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Final model of multivariate analysis for postoperative oxygen requirement.

Variables Crude OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR
(95% CI)
P (Wald’s test) P (LR-test)
Hypothermia episodes (ref. = 1) 0.019
None 1.11 (0.89,1.38) 1.32 (1.02,1.7) 0.035
>1 2.75 (1.26,6) 2.64 (1.1,6.32) 0.029
Age group, years (ref. = 18–49) < 0.001
50–65 1.03 (0.79,1.33) 1.89 (1.33,2.7) < 0.001
>65 2.2 (1.73,2.79) 3.88 (2.67,5.63) < 0.001
Body mass index (kg/m 2 ) 1.09 (1.07,1.1) 1.07 (1.04,1.09) < 0.001 < 0.001
ASA Classification (ref. = I) 0.002
II 2.72 (1.41,5.25) 0.9 (0.44,1.81) 0.758
III 12.0 (6.17,23.2) 1.5 (0.71,3.16) 0.286
Duration of anesthesia (minutes) 1.0028 (1.0021,1.0034) 1.0022 (1.0015,1.003) < 0.001 < 0.001
Underlying cardiovascular disease (ref. = no) 0.033
Hypertension 2.88 (2.31,3.6) 1.46 (1.09,1.96) 0.01
Others (heart failure, ischemic heart disease, arrhythmias) 1.44 (1.03,2.01) 1.13 (0.77,1.67) 0.528
Underlying respiratory disease (ref. = no) < 0.001
Asthma 2.1 (1.22,3.63) 1.46 (0.8,2.69) 0.22
Obstructive sleep apnea 8.89 (6.44,12.26) 3.26 (1.98,5.35) < 0.001
Others (pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, tuberculosis, COPD) 1.6 (1.05,2.43) 1.55 (0.97,2.46) 0.066
Underlying diabetes mellitus 2.68 (2.09,3.45) 1.27 (0.94,1.72) 0.113 0.114

Notes: LR-test = likelihood ratio test. OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval, ASA = American society of anesthesia, COPD = Chronic obstructive lung disease.

Patients experiencing more than one episode of hypothermia were more likely to have post-operative oxygen requirement (OR (95% CI); 2.64 (1.1,6.32), P = 0.019) compared to those with normothermia and one episode of hypothermia. Additionally, patients with normothermia were also more likely to require postoperative oxygen compared to those with only one episode of hypothermia (OR (95%CI); 1.32 (1.02,1.7), P = 0.019. The area under the ROC curve was 0.8 (S3 Fig), indicating a good discriminatory power in predicting postoperative oxygen requirement based on presence and absence of intraoperative hypothermia.

Duration of PACU stay

Hypothermia was significantly associated with an increased duration of PACU stay. Patients with one or more than one episode had longer PACU stays compared to normothermic patients (β[95%CI]:3.82[1.34,6.29] and 12.43[2.29,22.57] minutes, respectively, P = 0.001) (Table 6). ASA classification, underlying respiratory disease and underlying dyslipidemia were also associated with PACU stay.

Table 6. Multiple linear regression model for duration of PACU stay.

Variables Crude β
(95%CI)
Adjusted β
(95%CI)
P (Wald’s test) P (F-test)
Hypothermia episodes: (ref. = none) 0.001
1 4.13 (1.75,6.51) 3.82 (1.34,6.29) 0.002
>1 15.25 (5.11,25.4) 12.43 (2.29,22.57) 0.013
Age group, years (ref. = 18–49) 0.004
50–65 -2.68 (-5.37,0) -4.9 (-7.94,-1.85) 0.002
>65 2.24 (-0.5,4.98) -2.67 (-6.13,0.79) 0.13
ASA classification (ref. = I) < 0.001
II 3.47 (-0.79,7.74) 0.36 (-4.09,4.81) 0.874
III 15.81 (11.25,20.36) 7.79 (2.64,12.94) 0.003
Site of surgery (ref. = Gynecology) 0.004
Others (adrenalectomy, hepatectomy, splenectomy pancreatectomy)
-15.1 (-22.11, -8.09)
10.59(3.61,17.56) 0.003
Genitourinary -5.76 (-13.51,1.98) 5.74(0.94,10.55) 0.019
Gastrointestinal -7.21 (-14.03,-0.4) 4.01(1.05,6.98) 0.008
Duration of anesthesia (minutes) 0.02 (0.01,0.03) 0.01 (0,0.01) 0.235 0.235
Underlying respiratory disease (ref. = no) <0.001
Asthma 3.53 (-2.87,9.93) 0.88 (-5.45,7.21) 0.785
Obstructive sleep apnea 17.3 (13.53,21.06) 9.76 (5.06,14.46) <0.001
Others (pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, tuberculosis, COPD) 6.8 (2.12,11.48) 5.57 (0.95,10.19) 0.018
Underlying malignancy 3.1 (0.62,5.58) 3.01(-0.05,6.07) 0.054 0.054
Underlying hyperthyroidism -12.84 (-24.78,-0.9) -11.55 (-23.03,-0.07) 0.049 0.049
Underlying dyslipidemia 5.17 (2.81,7.54) 2.62 (0.06,5.18) 0.045 0.045

Notes: ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists, β = Beta coefficient, CI = Confidence interval, COPD = Chronic obstructive lung disease.

Duration of hospital stay

From the univariate linear regression model, there was a significant association between hypothermia and duration of hospital stay. However, on multivariate analysis, the association was not statistically significant. ASA classification, duration of anesthesia, underlying malignancy, underlying hematologic conditions and the timing of surgery were significantly associated with duration of hospital stay. Fig 2 displays the associations between hypothermia and perioperative outcomes.

Fig 2. Association between hypothermia and perioperative outcomes by multivariate analysis.

Fig 2

Normothermic patients and those with more than one episode of hypothermia had increased odds of postoperative oxygen requirement compared to patients with one episode of hypothermia (OR [95%CI]:1.32[1.02,1.7] and 2.64[1.1,6.32], respectively, P = 0.019). Patients with one and more than one episode of hypothermia had almost double and more than triple the risk of intraoperative cardiac arrhythmia compared to normothermic patients (OR [95%CI]: 1.67[1.24,2.25] and 3.65[1.53,8.74], respectively, P<0.001). Patients with one and more than one episode of hypothermia experienced increased duration of PACU stay compared to normothermic patients (β[95%CI]:3.82[1.34,6.29] and 12.43[2.29,22.57] minutes, respectively, P = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the other outcomes.

Discussion

This study marks one of the initial investigations examining the direct implications of intraoperative hypothermia in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. This retrospectively study analysed over 2,000 adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery in a single university hospital between 2019 to 2021. Despite the routine employment of preventive strategies within our institution, the incidence of intraoperative hypothermia during laparoscopic surgery remained high at 34.9% which is consistent with other studies [10, 20]. Cumin et al. [20] found that there were no significant differences in the risk and incidence of intraoperative hypothermic episodes between open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The statistical significance of baseline characteristics in our study may be due to the large sample size and may not be clinically meaningful. The primary objectives of our study was to elucidate the effects of intraoperative hypothermia on various outcomes, such as cardiac arrhythmias, postoperative oxygen requirement, and length of PACU stay. Hypothermia was defined as a temperature below 36°C as commonly considered in clinical practice. In addition to considering temperature below 36°C as our primary exposure, we also recognized the varying frequency of hypothermia in laparoscopic surgery, possibly due to the prolonged duration of these procedures. Therefore, we stratified our exposure into single and multiple episodes of hypothermia to investigate potential associations. Our findings revealed significant associations between hypothermia and outcomes such as intraoperative cardiac arrhythmias, longer PACU stay, and postoperative oxygen requirements. Initially, there was no significant association between postoperative oxygen requirement and hypothermia compared to normothermia. However, subgroup analysis showed a significant association with increased frequency of hypothermia.

Our findings suggested that a higher frequency of intraoperative hypothermic episodes correlated with a greater likelihood of patients experiencing intraoperative cardiac arrhythmias. Specifically, individuals with one episode of hypothermia were twice as likely to experience arrhythmias, while those with two or more episodes were three times as likely. Hypothermia typically leads to a decrease in spontaneous heart rate and cardiac output as noted by Polderman [21] and Wood [22]. However, there is currently lack of consensus regarding the effects of hypothermia upon the contractile function, and the underlying physiological mechanism remains unknown.

Patients who experienced multiple hypothermic episodes exhibited higher oxygen requirement during the postoperative period. Interestingly, normothermic patients were more likely to require higher oxygen levels than those who encountered only one episode of hypothermia. This observation may be attributed to the fact that once a patient’s temperature drops, increased interventions are performed which potentially elevated their temperature by the end of surgery compared to those who remained normothermic. Hypothermia has been demonstrated to result in vasoconstriction and shivering, leading to an increase in oxygen requirements [23].

Our study revealed that patients experiencing multiple episodes of hypothermia had a prolonged duration of PACU stay compared with normothermic patients. Hypothermic patients can take a longer time to rewarm and reach acceptable temperature before discharge from PACU. A study in 2022 also suggested that intraoperative hypothermia leads to increased length of PACU stay [24].

The association between hypothermia and other outcomes

To our knowledge, there are limited studies directly addressing the complications of intraoperative hypothermia in laparoscopic surgery. Reported consequences from few studies include increased risk of postoperative transfusion requirement [25] and increased length of stay [18, 26]. Pu et al. [27] also conducted a randomized controlled trial and found that the use of an underbody warming system can prevent hypothermia and reduce the coagulation dysfunction. Similarly, studies suggested that forced air warming can reduce the incidence of perioperative hypothermia, subsequently decreasing complications such as bleeding [28] and shivering [24, 28]. However, our study could not confirm any association between hypothermia and transfusion requirement, nor did it find any association between hypothermia and shivering. This could be due to effect of using force air warming in our setting resulting in decreasing incidence of hypothermia and its effect as seen in previous studies [2934]. A meta-analysis conducted in 2016 on the use of warm, humidified insufflation highlighted benefits such as reduced hypothermia and shorter hospital stay [18]. Contrary to these findings, our multivariate analysis failed to find a significant association between intraoperative hypothermia and length of hospital stay. Notably, variables such as ASA classification, duration of anesthesia, underlying malignancy, underlying hematologic conditions and the timing of surgery showed significant associations with the duration of hospital stay.

Implications of the study

The findings from this study have significant clinical implications for the management of intraoperative hypothermia in laparoscopic surgery. This study highlights the critical need for the increased awareness and proactive measures to mitigate hypothermia related complications. Optimized temperature management guidelines that we plan to implement into our institute for laparoscopic surgery are as follows. At the preoperative period, proper preoperative warming for at least 30 minutes should be considered in high-risk patients as found previously [25]; however, one should be aware that the risk of burns and thermal injuries may increase. At the intraoperative period, continuously monitoring and maintaining core body temperature above 36°C must be performed by various methods such as forced air warming devices applied under or above the patient, optimal operating room temperature, warm intravenous fluids, limiting the exposure time of surgical sites, and using warmed, humidified insufflation gases. In the PACU period, continuous warming strategies should still be considered if the core temperature remains below 36°C to minimize possible adverse events. All staff should be trained on management protocols and made aware of their importance and the possible complication of aggressive warming.

Effective temperature management could also contribute to shorter recovery times leading to improved resource utilization within health care facilities and therefore might have a direct impact on hospital efficiency and patient turnover.

Strength and the limitations

A strength of this study is the large sample size, encompassing 2048 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery within a single center. By comparing the outcomes between normothermic group and the hypothermic groups, we were able to assess the impact of hypothermia. Moreover, there were no missing data in the final outcome model. However, there are several limitations that warrant considerations. Firstly, the present study has all the inherent limitations of a retrospective study. All the data were extracted solely from the hospital information system, implying that our results relied significantly on the quality of the documentations. Secondly, even though the temperature was monitored continuously, it had only been recorded every 30 minutes; this could somehow affect the temperature’s accuracy. However, the duration of hypothermia was also measured to see the trend of the temperature change to bring more accuracy to the temperature’s data. Additionally, the variations in temperature measurement also needs to be addressed. The ambient temperatures inside the operating rooms were not documented, which could have influenced the internal core temperature readings. However, a recent study concluded that the ambient intraoperative temperature has a minimal impact on core temperature when patients are warmed with forced air [35]. Despite these measures, there might still be other confounders for hypothermia that remained uncontrolled. Moreover, being a single-center study, our results may not be generalizable to other populations or settings due to the potential differences in baseline characteristics and also the routine practices across different institutions. Future studies should address these limitations and employ more comprehensive methodologies to enhance the validity and generalizability of the findings.

Conclusions

The incidence of intraoperative hypothermia in laparoscopic surgery in our setting was 34.9%. Our findings underscore the significant impact of intraoperative hypothermia as more episodes were associated with a higher likelihood of patients experiencing intraoperative cardiac arrhythmias, prolonged PACU stay and higher postoperative oxygen requirement. Our results emphasize the critical importance of maintaining normothermia through vigilant monitoring and proactive management during laparoscopic procedures to minimize negative outcomes.

Moving forward, it is imperative to conduct further researches, including prospective studies and randomized trials with active thermal interventions to identify its benefits, validate these results and develop optimal strategies for preventing and managing intraoperative hypothermia in laparoscopic surgery. Early recognition and efficient intervention protocols are essential during the occurrence of intraoperative hypothermia and ultimately improve the surgical outcomes and overall well-being of patients.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Anesthetic record with temperature monitoring of laparoscopic surgery patient.

(TIF)

pone.0314968.s001.tif (6.1MB, tif)
S2 Fig. Receiver operating characteristic curve of the final model for predicting intraoperative cardiac arrhythmia.

(TIF)

pone.0314968.s002.tif (320.3KB, tif)
S3 Fig. Receiver operating characteristic curve of the final model for predicting postoperative oxygen requirement.

(TIF)

pone.0314968.s003.tif (333.9KB, tif)
S1 Table. Outcome comparison between normothermia and hypothermia.

(DOCX)

pone.0314968.s004.docx (19.6KB, docx)
S1 File. Minimal data set.

(CSV)

pone.0314968.s005.csv (682.1KB, csv)

Acknowledgments

The authors express their deepest gratitude to all the faculty members of the master’s in clinical research and health sciences program at Prince of Songkla University Additionally, we would like to acknowledge all staff in the operating room and the Department of Anesthesiology, Prince of Songkla University for their support during the course of this study.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The funding was granted for Dr. Tashi Penjore, amount of 44,600 baht (#65-226-8-9) by the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sessler DI. Complications and treatment of mild hypothermia. Anesthesiology. 2001; 95: 531–543. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200108000-00040 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sessler DI. Perioperative thermoregulation and heat balance. Lancet. 2016; 387: 2655–2664. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00981-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yi J, Xiang Z, Deng X, Fan T, Fu R, Geng W, et al. Incidence of Inadvertent Intraoperative Hypothermia and Its Risk Factors in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia in Beijing: A Prospective Regional Survey. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0136136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136136 ; PMCID: PMC4567074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Riley C, Andrzejowski J. Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia. BJA Educ. 2018; 18: 227–233. doi: 10.1016/j.bjae.2018.05.003 Epub 2018 Jun 28. ; PMCID: PMC7807998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yang L, Huang CY, Zhou ZB, Wen ZS, Zhang GR, Liu KX, et al. Risk factors for hypothermia in patients under general anesthesia: Is there a drawback of laminar airflow operating rooms? A prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2015; 21: 14–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.06.079 Epub 2015 Jul 13. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Baucom RB, Phillips SE, Ehrenfeld JM, Muldoon RL, Poulose BK, Herline AJ, et al. Association of Perioperative Hypothermia During Colectomy with Surgical Site Infection. JAMA Surg. 2015; 150: 570–575. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.77 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Xu H, Wang Z, Guan X, Lu Y, Malone DC, Salmon JW, et al. Safety of intraoperative hypothermia for patients: meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020; 20: 202. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01065-z ; PMCID: PMC7429823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Simegn GD, Bayable SD, Fetene MB. Prevention and management of perioperative hypothermia in adult elective surgical patients: a systematic review. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021; 72: 103059. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103059 ; PMCID: PMC8605381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pan P, Song K, Yao Y, Jiang T, Jiang Q. The impact of intraoperative hypothermia on blood loss and allogenic blood transfusion in total knee and hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study. Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020: 1096743. doi: 10.1155/2020/1096743 ; PMCID: PMC7222593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chen HY, Su LJ, Wu HZ, Zou H, Yang R, Zhu YX. Risk factors for inadvertent intraoperative hypothermia in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0257816. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257816 ; PMCID: PMC8460038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang M, Jiang Y, Han W, Jiang L, Mao C. Summary of the best evidence for the prevention of intraoperative unplanned hypothermia in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Gland Surg. 2021; 10: 2790–2798. doi: 10.21037/gs-21-578 ; PMCID: PMC8514294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ahmed U, Ullah H, Samad K. Mean Temperature Loss During General Anesthesia for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Comparison of Males and Females. Cureus. 2021; 13: e17128. doi: 10.7759/cureus.17128 ; PMCID: PMC8437001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hazebroek EJ, Schreve MA, Visser P, De Bruin RW, Marquet RL, Bonjer HJ. Impact of temperature and humidity of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on body temperature and peritoneal morphology. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002; 12: 355–364. doi: 10.1089/109264202320884108 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Peng Y, Zheng M, Ye Q, Chen X, Yu B, Liu B. Heated and humidified CO2 prevents hypothermia, peritoneal injury, and intra-abdominal adhesions during prolonged laparoscopic insufflations. J Surg Res. 2009; 151: 40–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.03.039 Epub 2008 Apr 23. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Schlotterbeck H, Schaeffer R, Dow WA, Diemunsch P. Cold nebulization used to prevent heat loss during laparoscopic surgery: an experimental study in pigs. Surg Endosc. 2008; 22: 2616–2620. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-9841-z Epub 2008 Mar 18. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shen C, He Y. Intraoperative hypothermia in patients with laparoscopic surgery: Influencing factors and prevention strategies. Heliyon. 2024; 10: e31479. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mason SE, Kinross JM, Hendricks J, Arulampalam TH. Postoperative hypothermia and surgical site infection following peritoneal insufflation with warm, humidified carbon dioxide during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a cohort study with cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31: 1923–1929. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5195-0 Epub 2016 Oct 12. ; PMCID: PMC5346131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dean M, Ramsay R, Heriot A, Mackay J, Hiscock R, Lynch AC. Warmed, humidified CO2 insufflation benefits intraoperative core temperature during laparoscopic surgery: A meta-analysis. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2017; 10: 128–136. doi: 10.1111/ases.12350 Epub 2016 Dec 14. ; PMCID: PMC5484286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Choi JW, Kim DK, Kim JK, Lee EJ, Kim JY. A retrospective analysis on the relationship between intraoperative hypothermia and postoperative ileus after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0190711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190711 ; PMCID: PMC5757986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cumin D, Fogarin J, Mitchell SJ, Windsor JA. Perioperative hypothermia in open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2022; 92: 1125–1131. doi: 10.1111/ans.17493 Epub 2022 Jan 27. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Polderman KH. Mechanisms of action, physiological effects, and complications of hypothermia. Crit Care Med. 2009; 37: S186–202. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181aa5241 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wood T, Thoresen M. Physiological responses to hypothermia. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 20: 87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2014.10.005 Epub 2014 Nov 8. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Good KK, Verble JA, Secrest J, Norwood BR. Postoperative hypothermia—the chilling consequences. AORN J. 2006; 83: 1054–1066. doi: 10.1016/s0001-2092(06)60116-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhang J, Deng L, Wang X, Song F, Hou H, Qiu Y. Effect of forced-air warming blanket on perioperative hypothermia in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer. Ther Hypothermia Temp Manag. 2022; 12: 68–73. doi: 10.1089/ther.2021.0010 Epub 2021 Jul 7. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Becerra A, Valencia L, Villar J, Rodriguez-Perez A. Short-periods of pre-warming in laparoscopic surgery. A non-randomized clinical trial evaluating current clinical practice. J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 1047. doi: 10.3390/jcm10051047 ; PMCID: PMC7959470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Jiang R, Sun Y, Wang H, Liang M, Xie X. Effect of different carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98: e17520. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017520 ; PMCID: PMC6799792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pu Y, Cen G, Sun J, Gong J, Zhang Y, Zhang M, et al. Warming with an underbody warming system reduces intraoperative hypothermia in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized controlled study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014; 51: 181–189. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.05.013 Epub 2013 Jun 17. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Su SF, Nieh HC. Efficacy of forced-air warming for preventing perioperative hypothermia and related complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Pract. 2018; 24: e12660. doi: 10.1111/ijn.12660 Epub 2018 Apr 23. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sumida H, Sugino S, Kuratani N, Konno D, Hasegawa JI, Yamauchi M. Effect of forced-air warming by an underbody blanket on end-of-surgery hypothermia: a propensity score-matched analysis of 5063 patients. BMC Anesthesiology. 2019; 19: 50. doi: 10.1186/s12871-019-0724-8 ; PMCID: PMC6456966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tian YN, Gao WY, Tian XR, Wang ZW. Comparative Efficacy of Six Active Warming Systems for Intraoperative Warming in Adult Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Ther Hypothermia Temp Manag. 2023; 13: 92–101. doi: 10.1089/ther.2022.0032 Epub 2022 Nov 23. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Madrid E, Urrútia G, Roqué i Figuls M, Pardo-Hernandez H, Campos JM, Paniagua P, et al. Active body surface warming systems for preventing complications caused by inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 4: CD009016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009016.pub2 ; PMCID: PMC8687605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nieh HC, Su SF. Meta-analysis: effectiveness of forced-air warming for prevention of perioperative hypothermia in surgical patients. J Adv Nurs. 2016; 72: 2294–2314. doi: 10.1111/jan.13010 Epub 2016 May 31. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chen YC, Cherng YG, Romadlon DS, Chang KM, Huang CJ, Tsai PS, et al. Comparative effects of warming systems applied to different parts of the body on hypothermia in adults undergoing abdominal surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Anesth. 2023; 89: 111190. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111190 Epub 2023 Jun 28. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Qian M, Ye Y, Zhou J. Effect of thermal insulation on preventing hypothermia during laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer. Am J Transl Res. 2024; 16: 2158–2165. doi: 10.62347/BKBY6649 ; PMCID: PMC11170595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pei L, Huang Y, Xu Y, Zheng Y, Sang X, Zhou X, et al. Effects of Ambient Temperature and Forced-air Warming on Intraoperative Core Temperature: A Factorial Randomized Trial. Anesthesiology. 2018; 128: 903–911. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002099 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marco Clementi

2 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-29030Effects of Intraoperative Hypothermia on Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oofuvong,

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: the paper is well-written and structured. In order to be evaluated for publication, changes must be made according to the reviewers' requests.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 16 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,

Marco Clementi, Associate Professor

Academic 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: The funding was granted for Dr. Tashi Penjore, amount of 44,600 baht (#65-226-8-9) by the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University. 

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper is well-written and structured. In order to be evaluated for publication, changes must be made according to the reviewers' requests.

[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: This is a well written retrospective review of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery and experience hypothermia. The sample size is considerable and the analysis was sound.

Technically, retrospective review should not be called cohort study as those are typically prospective. The definitions otherwise are quite clear and allows repeatability of this study. The incidence of hypothermia was just over a third of the patients which is quite significant. Can the author provide reasons why did happen given it is a major element in the Surgical Care bundle and part of patient setup?

Can the author provide insights on how this can be prevented and that high percentage be brought down? Would adding it to the checklist help? How does this figures compare to international literature? It would hugely beneficial if the authors provide insights to how it happens and recommendations on how to prevent it.

Reviewer #2: This study explores the impact of intraoperative hypothermia on patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, which is clinically innovative and of great significance. The research method is a retrospective cohort study with a large and comprehensive sample size, which is reliable. The setting of independent and dependent variables is reasonable and comprehensive, the statistical methods are reasonable, logistic regression and linear regression are used to determine the relationship, and there is also a clear flowchart. But there are also some shortcomings:

1.It is recommended to replace the reference with the latest one as it has a relatively long history.

2.The conclusion section can provide a clearer indication of the specific direction and focus of future research.

3.In table4, table5, and table6, abbreviations for some variables (such as OR, CI, etc.) should be given their full names and explanations when they first appear to facilitate readers' understanding. For all tables, it is recommended to add more statistical information, such as the specific calculation method of P-value and the confidence level of the confidence interval.

**********

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. 2025 Jan 30;20(1):e0314968. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314968.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Oct 2024

Dear PLOS ONE Editor,

We would like to resubmit a manuscript entitled “Effects of Intraoperative Hypothermia on Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study” as an original article in your journal.

We are thankful to have a chance to revise our manuscript. To address the editor’s comment, we have added the information in the Tables and discussion section, updated the reference, and deposited our protocol in protocols.io. We also highlighted the changes in the current version. Attached is a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments from the Editors

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

Response: We ensure that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: The funding was granted for Dr. Tashi Penjore, amount of 44,600 baht (#65-226-8-9) by the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University.

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.

Response: The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We include this amended Role of Funder statement in our recent cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper is well-written and structured. In order to be evaluated for publication, changes must be made according to the reviewers' requests.

Response: Thank you.

Reviewers' comments:

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:

This is a well written retrospective review of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery and experience hypothermia. The sample size is considerable and the analysis was sound.

Technically, retrospective review should not be called cohort study as those are typically prospective. The definitions otherwise are quite clear and allows repeatability of this study. The incidence of hypothermia was just over a third of the patients which is quite significant. Can the author provide reasons why did happen given it is a major element in the Surgical Care bundle and part of patient setup?

Response: It was a retrospective cohort study since we can determine the cause-and-effect relationship between the exposure and outcomes. In this case, the hypothermia/episode of hypothermia was an exposure, and the effects were the consequences of the hypothermia (postoperative oxygen requirement and longer PACU stay). The term “retrospective review” could not determine the cause-and-effect relationship.

The incidence of hypothermia in our study is quite high at 34.9% but it is still within the normal range found. The reasons for this high incidence could be due to the lower room temperature inside the operating rooms in our institution (18-20˚C), longer duration of surgery resulting in exposing surgical sites for a long time. Our previous protocol was as follow. Forced air warming devices are applied above the patient in every case and use of warm irrigation and warm intravenous fluid. In case the body temperature turns lower than 36 ˚C, the operating room’s temperature could be adjusted to 22-24 ˚C case by case. Yet, there was still not adequately proper warming throughout the operation. Thus, the more proper guideline mentioned in the “Implication of the study” subsection in the discussion section must be implemented (Lines 329-339).

Can the author provide insights on how this can be prevented and that high percentage be brought down? Would adding it to the checklist help? How does this figures compare to international literature? It would hugely beneficial if the authors provide insights to how it happens and recommendations on how to prevent it.

Response: The literature mentions the incidence of hypothermia in laparoscopic surgery to be around 29-90%. So our incidence of 34.9% still falls within that range. We think this can be prevented, as we mentioned the more proper guideline in the “Implication of the study” subsection in the discussion section must be implemented (Lines 329-339) “At the preoperative period, proper preoperative warming for at least 30 minutes should be considered in high-risk patients as found previously; however, one should be aware that the risk of burns and thermal injuries may increase. At the intraoperative period, continuously monitoring and maintaining core body temperature above 36˚C must be performed by various methods such as forced air warming devices applied under or above the patient, optimal operating room temperature, warm intravenous fluids, limiting the exposure time of surgical sites, and using warmed, humidified insufflation gases. In the PACU period, continuous warming strategies should still be considered if the core temperature remains below 36 ˚C to minimize possible adverse events. All staff should be trained on management protocols and made aware of their importance and the possible complication of aggressive warming.”

Having a checklist could also help, as one will notice the baseline temperature and will be able to perform the active interventions on time if there is hypothermia.

Reviewer #2:

This study explores the impact of intraoperative hypothermia on patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, which is clinically innovative and of great significance. The research method is a retrospective cohort study with a large and comprehensive sample size, which is reliable. The setting of independent and dependent variables is reasonable and comprehensive, the statistical methods are reasonable, logistic regression and linear regression are used to determine the relationship, and there is also a clear flowchart. But there are also some shortcomings:

1.It is recommended to replace the reference with the latest one as it has a relatively long history.

Response: We add the two more update references (16 and 34).

2.The conclusion section can provide a clearer indication of the specific direction and focus of future research.

Response: We edit the conclusion on the matter (Lines 368-371).

3.In table4, table5, and table6, abbreviations for some variables (such as OR, CI, etc.) should be given their full names and explanations when they first appear to facilitate readers' understanding. For all tables, it is recommended to add more statistical information, such as the specific calculation method of P-value and the confidence level of the confidence interval.

Response: Thank you for the advice. We add the full name of OR (odds ratio)/ β (Beta-coefficient) and CI (confidence interval) in the legend of Table 4-6. The 95% CI, the wald p-value for each subgroup of the variable (Table 4-6) and p-value by the likelihood ratio (LR) test for categorical outcome (Table 4,5) and p-value by F test statistic for continuous outcome (Table 6) were also mentioned in the heading of each table.

We uploaded our figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool and already got the PACE corrected files for resubmission. Thank you so much for your advice.

Should you have more comments, please don’t hesitate to contact us

Thank you for your attention to our paper

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Tashi Penjore

Assoc. Prof. Maliwan Oofuvong

Assist. Prof. Sunisa Chatmongkolchart

Assist. Prof. Chanatthee Kitisiripant

Rongrung Rueangchira-urai

Jaranya Leeratiwong

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewer v4.docx

pone.0314968.s006.docx (36.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Marco Clementi

11 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-29030R1Effects of Intraoperative Hypothermia on Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oofuvong,

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 Dec 26 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,

Marco Clementi, Associate Professor

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for your hard work in the review.

Minor revisions will be made in accordance with the reviewer's request.

[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 #2: (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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 1、The introduction mentions that the adverse effects of intraoperative hypothermia during open surgery include surgical site infections, coagulopathy and increased transfusion requirements, increased analgesic needs, altered drug metabolism, and adverse cardiac events. However, in the context of laparoscopic surgery, why is only arrhythmia mentioned among these adverse effects?

2. In this study, various methods are used to monitor body temperature, and there may be errors and inconsistencies in accuracy between different methods. Could this affect the accuracy of the results? Is it necessary to conduct a subgroup analysis? 3. A temperature monitoring interval of every 30 minutes may be too long; this should be discussed as it represents a limitation or an area for improvement in future studies. Continuous monitoring could provide statistics on the duration of hypothermia, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the research.

**********

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 #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. 2025 Jan 30;20(1):e0314968. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314968.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


16 Nov 2024

Dear PLOS ONE Editor,

We would like to resubmit a manuscript entitled “Effects of Intraoperative Hypothermia on Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study” as an original article in your journal.

We are thankful to have a chance to revise our manuscript. To address the editor’s comment, we have added more information in the result, Table 1, S1 Table and Table 3 and discussion section. We also highlighted the changes in the current version. Attached is a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s concerns.

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.

Answer: We already checked all cited references. There is no retracted article since the full articles of all cited references could be accessed.

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 #2: 1、The introduction mentions that the adverse effects of intraoperative hypothermia during open surgery include surgical site infections, coagulopathy and increased transfusion requirements, increased analgesic needs, altered drug metabolism, and adverse cardiac events. However, in the context of laparoscopic surgery, why is only arrhythmia mentioned among these adverse effects?

Answer: The introduction does mention the effects of intraoperative hypothermia in open surgeries as noted, but there was very little literature looking directly at the consequences of hypothermia in laparoscopic surgeries that also had inconsistent findings. Hence, the consequences of hypothermia were shown in Table 3. We also add the outcome of “intraoperative blood transfusion” into Table 3 (Lines 193-194) and S1 Table. Even though the hypothermia group was related to a higher proportion of blood transfusion requirements, it was not statistically significant in the multivariate logistic regression model. Since it is a retrospective cohort study, the surgical site infection and postoperative coagulopathy are quite limited to determine due to unwell documentation postoperatively. However, we measured the outcome that had more impact and could represent the undesirable consequences of hypothermia, such as duration of ICU admission and length of hospital stay.

2. In this study, various methods are used to monitor body temperature, and there may be errors and inconsistencies in accuracy between different methods. Could this affect the accuracy of the results? Is it necessary to conduct a subgroup analysis?

Answer: It is true that there are various methods used for recording temperature in our study, but the esophageal route, nasopharyngeal, and rectal temperatures all represent the core body temperature, so it should be accurate. In the case of the temperature measured from the ear (tympanic membrane), since it is less accurate with a potential error of less than 0.5 ˚C, we adjusted the recorded temperatures by adding 0.5 ˚C to correct for this discrepancy. We add the methods of temperature monitoring into Table 1. It showed a balance of methods of temperature monitoring among the hypothermia and normothermia groups (p = 0.334); therefore, the subgroup analysis among methods of temperature monitoring is not necessary. Only two patients were recorded by the rectal route, which required combination with other routes to accomplish comparison by the Chi-square test.

3. A temperature monitoring interval of every 30 minutes may be too long; this should be discussed as it represents a limitation or an area for improvement in future studies. Continuous monitoring could provide statistics on the duration of hypothermia, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the research.

Answer: We monitored the temperature continuously, but we only recorded every 30 minutes (S1 Fig). However, the duration of hypothermia was also measured to see the trend of the temperature change to bring more accuracy to the temperature’s data. We add this limitation into “The limitation subsection” (Lines 354-358). Longer duration of hypothermia could result in more undesirable outcomes; however, we performed different methods of warming (force air warming, warming mattress) (Lines 97-98) to raise the body’s temperature up to normal (BT > 36 ˚C). during surgery. Therefore, the development of a second episode of hypothermia after temperature resumed to normal was considered an exposure to hypothermia-related outcomes/consequences of hypothermia in our laparoscopic patients.

Should you have more comments, please don’t hesitate to contact us

Thank you for your attention to our paper

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Tashi Penjore

Assoc. Prof. Maliwan Oofuvong

Assist. Prof. Sunisa Chatmongkolchart

Assist. Prof. Chanatthee Kitisiripant

Rongrung Rueangchira-urai

Jaranya Leeratiwong

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer round 2.docx

pone.0314968.s007.docx (35.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Marco Clementi

20 Nov 2024

Effects of Intraoperative Hypothermia on Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PONE-D-24-29030R2

Dear Dr. Maliwan Oofuvong

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,

Marco Clementi, Associate Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Marco Clementi

3 Jan 2025

PONE-D-24-29030R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oofuvong,

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

Dr. Marco Clementi

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 Fig. Anesthetic record with temperature monitoring of laparoscopic surgery patient.

    (TIF)

    pone.0314968.s001.tif (6.1MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Receiver operating characteristic curve of the final model for predicting intraoperative cardiac arrhythmia.

    (TIF)

    pone.0314968.s002.tif (320.3KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Receiver operating characteristic curve of the final model for predicting postoperative oxygen requirement.

    (TIF)

    pone.0314968.s003.tif (333.9KB, tif)
    S1 Table. Outcome comparison between normothermia and hypothermia.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0314968.s004.docx (19.6KB, docx)
    S1 File. Minimal data set.

    (CSV)

    pone.0314968.s005.csv (682.1KB, csv)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewer v4.docx

    pone.0314968.s006.docx (36.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer round 2.docx

    pone.0314968.s007.docx (35.6KB, docx)

    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