Application of dual track nursing in the perioperative period of tension-free inguinal hernia repair in the elderly

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.05.028

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the application of universal combined with individualized dual track nursing in the perioperative period of tension-free inguinal hernia repair in the elderly.

Methods

A total of 76 elderly patients with tension-free inguinal hernia repair admitted to Wuhan NO.1 Hospital from May 2019 to February 2022 were selected and divided into control group and experimental group by random number table method, with 38 cases in each group. Routine nursing intervention was applied to the control group, and universal combined with individualized dual track nursing intervention was applied to the experimental group. The changes of psychological status [self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) score, self-rating depression scale (SDS) score, brief illness perception questionnaire (BIPQ) score], pain degree 3 days after operation [visual analogue scale (VAS) score, present pain intensity (PPI) score, pain rating index (PRI) score], complications, nursing compliance, length of stay in hospital and nursing satisfaction were compared between the two groups.

Results

The SAS and SDS scores were lower in the experimental group than in the control group, and BIPQ scores was higher in the experimental group than in the control (P<0.05). The VAS, PPI and PRI scores were also lower in the experimental group compared to the control group 3 days after operation (P<0.05). The incidence of complications was lower in the experimental group compared to the control group (P<0.05). The nursing compliance was higher in the experimental group than in the control group (P<0.05). The length of hospital stays was shorter in the experimental group than in the control group (P<0.05). The nursing satisfaction was higher in the experimental group compared to the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The adoption of universal combined with individualized dual track nursing measures for elderly patients undergoing tension-free inguinal hernia repair can significantly improve their physical and mental conditions and nursing compliance, shorten perioperative length of stay in hospital, improve patients' their satisfaction with nursing.

Key words: Hernia, inguinal, Herniorrhaphy, Perioperative period, Dual track nursing

Di Zhu, Fan Ouyang, Dan Yang, Min Hua, Qian Wu. Application of dual track nursing in the perioperative period of tension-free inguinal hernia repair in the elderly[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(05): 630-634.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.05.028

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2023/V17/I05/630

Figures/Tables 6

References 23

[1]	Berndsen MR, Gudbjartsson T, Berndsen FH. Inguinal hernia-review[J]. Laeknabladid, 2019, 105(9): 385-391.
[2]	Köckerling F, Koch A, Lorenz R. Groin hernias in women-a review of the literature[J]. Front Surg, 2019, 6: 4.
[3]	任少勋, 党涛平, 王晓东. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术与开放无张力腹股沟疝术治疗腹股沟疝价值分析[J]. 山西医药杂志, 2020, 49(4): 426-428.
[4]	Veenendaal NV, Simons M, Hope W, et al. Consensus on international guidelines for management of groin hernias[J]. Surg Endosc, 2020, 34(6): 2359-2377.
[5]	Chen DC, Poulose BK. Clinical guidelines synopsis of groin hernia management[J]. JAMA Surg, 2020, 155(10): 980-981.
[6]	Shah MY, Raut P, Wilkinson TRV, et al. Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal(TEP) inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein tension-free open mesh inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized study[J]. Medicine, 2022, 101(26): e29746.
[7]	Kubiliute E, Venclauskas L, Jasaitis K, et al. Evaluation of mobility status after inguinal hernia surgery[J]. Visc Med, 2019, 35(6): 380-386.
[8]	陆丽君, 许爱兰. 围术期心境感知护理对老年男性腹股沟疝患者无张力修补术后症状自评和应激状态的影响[J]. 国际护理学杂志, 2020, 39(24): 4491-4494.
[9]	Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Manns BJ, et al. Comparison of the complexity of patients seen by different medical subspecialists in a universal health care system[J]. JAMA Netw Open, 2019, 2(3): e190147.
[10]	唐健雄, 李航宇. 老年腹股沟疝诊断和治疗中国专家共识(2019版)解读[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(1): 12-15.
[11]	田银娣, 王怡恺, 李静, 等. 焦虑和抑郁量表在肝硬化患者临床应用中的信效度评价[J]. 实用肝脏病杂志, 2019, 22(1): 105-108.
[12]	王磊, 秦瑛. 间质性肺病患者的疾病感知现状及影响因素研究[J]. 中国护理管理, 2017, 17(11): 1567-1571.
[13]	金玲, 金卉. 临床护理路径对围手术期乳腺癌患者疼痛及心理状态的影响[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(2): 104-109.
[14]	Perez AJ, Campbell S. Inguinal hernia repair in older persons[J]. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2022, 23(4): 563-567.
[15]	Amato G, Agrusa A, Buono GD, et al. Inguinal hernia: defect obliteration with the 3D dynamic regenerative scaffold proflor™[J]. Surg Technol Int, 2021, 38: 199-205.
[16]	唐健雄, 孟云潇. 疝与腹壁外科发展方向的思路拓展[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2021, 20(7): 760-763.
[17]	皮丽娜, 候艳莹. 全程护理对腹股沟疝修补术患者心理状态与生活质量的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(1): 94-96.
[18]	徐宝兰, 吴倩, 谢玲. 手术室术前舒适护理对腹股沟疝老年患者心理状态及应激反应的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(6): 683-686.
[19]	吕爱民, 杜华栋. 腹股沟疝日间手术围手术期个体化护理体会[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(3): 314-316.
[20]	孙敏. 针对性心理护理结合舒适护理对腹股沟疝术后患者VAS评分及疗效的影响[J]. 国际护理学杂志, 2019, 38(4): 497-500.
[21]	Köckerling F, Adolf D, Lorenz R, et al. Perioperative outcome in groin hernia repair: what are the most important influencing factors?[J]. Hernia, 2022, 26(1): 201-215.
[22]	王青青, 蒋红娜, 顾燕儿, 等. 综合护理干预对腹股沟疝手术患者恢复情况并发症疼痛及护理满意度的影响[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2019, 19(14): 2491-2493.
[23]	窦梦, 罗彩红, 魏群英. 音乐点播干预联合精细化护理对腹腔镜腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术患者的影响[J]. 齐鲁护理杂志, 2021, 27(6): 99-101.

组别	例数	性别[例(%)]		年龄(岁,±s)	腹股沟疝类型[例(%)]
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(岁,±s)	斜疝	直疝
对照组	38	28(73.68)	10(26.32)	68.72±3.48	17(44.74)	21(55.26)
试验组	38	30(78.95)	8(21.05)	69.92±3.63	20(52.63)	18(47.37)
χ²/t		0.291		1.471	0.474
P		0.589		0.146	0.491

组别	例数	性别[例(%)]		年龄(岁,±s)	腹股沟疝类型[例(%)]
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(岁,±s)	斜疝	直疝
对照组	38	28(73.68)	10(26.32)	68.72±3.48	17(44.74)	21(55.26)
试验组	38	30(78.95)	8(21.05)	69.92±3.63	20(52.63)	18(47.37)
χ²/t		0.291		1.471	0.474
P		0.589		0.146	0.491

组别	例数	SAS		SDS		BIPQ
组别	例数	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后
对照组	38	57.12±6.82	50.19±5.33^*	54.36±3.37	49.35±7.13^*	40.46±5.61	47.64±4.57^*
试验组	38	57.23±6.34	39.67±4.27^*	55.11±3.18	40.04±6.21^*	40.72±5.33	53.21±4.34^*
t		0.073	9.496	0.998	6.070	0.207	5.448
P		0.942	<0.001	0.322	<0.001	0.837	<0.001

组别	例数	SAS		SDS		BIPQ
组别	例数	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后
对照组	38	57.12±6.82	50.19±5.33^*	54.36±3.37	49.35±7.13^*	40.46±5.61	47.64±4.57^*
试验组	38	57.23±6.34	39.67±4.27^*	55.11±3.18	40.04±6.21^*	40.72±5.33	53.21±4.34^*
t		0.073	9.496	0.998	6.070	0.207	5.448
P		0.942	<0.001	0.322	<0.001	0.837	<0.001

组别	例数	VAS评分	PPI评分	PRI评分
对照组	38	3.78±1.13	2.12±0.77	3.94±1.56
试验组	38	2.43±0.67	1.01±0.83	2.37±1.32
t		6.335	6.044	4.736
P		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export