Skip to main content
. 2016 Apr 21;2016(4):CD009016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009016.pub2

Kurz 1995.

Methods Design: RCT
Operative phase: intraoperative
Withdrawals: none
Setting: 1 centre (Austria)
Sample size: 74
Funding: Supported by a grant from the Max Kade Foundation and the Joseph Drown Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (GM49670)
Participants Age (mean range): 57 ‐ 59 years
Gender (M/F): 39/35
ASA grade: I ‐ III
Surgery type: elective colorectal surgery
Surgery duration (mean): > 2 hrs (3.3/3.5 hrs)
Anaesthesia type: general
Interventions Intervention (ABSW): n = 39
Upper‐body forced‐air cover (Bair Hugger®, Augustine Medical, Inc)
Temperature set at 40ºC
Duration: not stated
Body area covered: upper body
Control: n = 35
Routine thermal management
Participants in this group were allowed to become hypothermic (34ºC), then FAW was instituted to prevent further hypothermia
Co‐interventions: fluid was heated to 37ºC in the FAW group but not in the control group
Room temperature: 21° ‐ 22ºC intraoperatively and 23° ‐ 25ºC postoperatively
Outcomes Fluids infused (total) (ml)
Shivering (grade 1 ‐ 3)
Pain (VAS 0 ‐ 100) (reported narratively)
Thermal comfort (VAS 0 ‐ 100)
Other outcomes reported not included in the review:
  • Vasoconstriction

  • Heart rate

  • Arterial blood pressure

  • Dose of fentanyl

Notes Comparison 1
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer‐generated random numbers table
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported (most probably not concealed)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Open‐label ('risk of bias' judgement depending on the nature of the outcome)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not reported
Baseline comparability of groups Low risk Yes
Co‐interventions equal between groups Low risk Yes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All randomized participants were analysed
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk We did not have access to the protocol, therefore we cannot exclude risk of selective reporting with the information provided
Other bias Low risk