Application effect of comprehensive intervention in operating room in elderly patients with inguinal hernia

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.06.021

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the application effect of comprehensive nursing intervention in operating room in elderly patients with inguinal hernia.

Methods

A prospective study was conducted from September 2020 to January 2022, including 60 elderly patients with inguinal hernia admitted to the Anhui Wannan Rehabilitation Hospital (Wuhu Fifth People's Hospital). They were divided into control group and experimental group using random number table method, with 30 patients in each group. The control group was given routine perioperative nursing intervention, and the experimental group was given comprehensive nursing intervention in the operating room. The intraoperative physiological stress and body temperature changes; visual analogue scale (VAS) score of pain, Kolcaba's Comfort Scale (GCQ) score, psychological state before and after surgery; postoperative recovery effect, complications and nursing satisfaction were compared between the two groups.

Results

The intraoperative blood pressure and heart rate fluctuation values in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05); the body temperature at 15 min, 30 min, and the end of operation in the experimental group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). Before surgery, there was no significant difference in VAS, GCQ, SAS and SDS scores between the two groups (P>0.05); after surgery, the VAS, SAS and SDS scores decreased, and the experimental group was significantly lower than the control group (P<0.05). The GCQ scores were all increased, and the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group (P<0.05). The anal exhaust time and the first time to get out of bed in the experimental group were significantly less than those in the control group (P<0.05), the incidence of complications was slightly lower than that in the control group (6.67% vs 13.33%, P>0.05), and the nursing satisfaction was significantly higher than that of the control group(90.00% vs 66.67%, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with conventional perioperative nursing intervention, comprehensive nursing intervention in operating room applied to elderly patients with inguinal hernia can effectively reduce physiological stress, maintain stable body temperature, reduce pain, anxiety and depression, promote postoperative recovery, and improve nursing satisfaction.

Key words: Perioperative period, Nursing, Hernia, inguinal, Elderly, Complications

Gege Dai, Li Yang, Yuanyuan Hu, Wenting Zhou. Application effect of comprehensive intervention in operating room in elderly patients with inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 759-763.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.06.021

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2023/V17/I06/759

Figures/Tables 8

References 20

[1]	李博, 刘显义, 刘嘉文, 等. 无张力疝修补术与TAPP治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效研究[J]. 中国冶金工业医学杂志, 2023, 40(1): 2.
[2]	Shakil A, Aparicio K, Barta E, et al. Inguinal Hernias: Diagnosis and Management[J]. Am Fam Physician, 2020, 102(8): 487-492.
[3]	陈越火, 顾翔宇, 于志臻. 腹股沟疝无张力修补术手术部位感染危险因素[J]. 中国感染控制杂志, 2020, 19(2): 173-176.
[4]	杨硕, 彭鹏, 陈杰. 合并导致腹腔内压力增高疾病腹股沟疝病人围手术期管理要点[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2023, 43(6): 660-662.
[5]	段菊花, 陈大敏, 孙云霞, 等. Lichtenstein手术对老年腹股沟疝患者生活质量的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(2): 169-172.
[6]	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.
[7]	HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 1-165.
[8]	孙叶飞, 谢冰心, 金宝娣, 等. 综合护理对老年造口旁疝患者围术期的干预效果[J]. 中国医科大学学报, 2021, 50(2): 186-189.
[9]	李航宇, 顾岩, 王明刚, 等. 老年腹股沟疝诊断和治疗中国专家共识(2019版)[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2019, 39(8): 782-787.
[10]	杨华强. 完全腹膜外腹腔镜疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝患者的疗效及安全性分析[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2020, 20(18): 68-70.
[11]	吴立胜, 余建伟, 李煜. 复发腹股沟疝手术方式的选择及临床疗效[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2019, 18(11): 1043-1047.
[12]	彭秋萍. 局部神经阻滞麻醉在腹股沟无张力疝修补术中的效果研究[J]. 重庆医学, 2021, 50(S02): 246-247.
[13]	Wu XF, Kong WF, Wang WH, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in functional endoscopic sinus surgery for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a randomized clinical trial[J]. Chin Med J(Engl), 2019, 132(3): 253-258.
[14]	王子君, 沈薇姚, 刘丽. 穴位按摩联合情志护理对腹股沟疝修补术患者预后的效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(6): 604-608.
[15]	中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组, 中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科医师委员会. 成人腹股沟疝诊断和治疗指南(2018年版)[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2018, 21(7): 721-724.
[16]	张立明. 腹股沟疝治疗进展[J]. 继续医学教育, 2021, 35(5): 86-88.
[17]	徐志强, 尹中宇, 礼巍, 等. 腹腔镜手术治疗腹股沟疝的临床效果观察[J]. 中国实用医药, 2021, 16(4): 44-46.
[18]	Köckerling F, Simons MP. Current Concepts of Inguinal Hernia Repair[J]. Visc Med, 2018, 34(2): 145-150.
[19]	冀慎美. 手术室短期综合护理在腹股沟疝手术患者中的应用价值分析[J]. 基层医学论坛, 2023, 27(15): 36-38.
[20]	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.

组别	例数	性别[例(%)]		年龄(岁,±s)	疝部位[例(%)]		Gilbert分型[例(%)]			体重指数[例(%)]	美国麻醉医师分级[例(%)]
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(岁,±s)	双侧疝	单侧疝	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	体重指数[例(%)]	Ⅰ	Ⅱ
对照组	30	29(96.67)	1(3.33)	70.90±6.45	1(3.33)	29(96.67)	26(86.67)	3(10.00)	1(3.33)	22.85±1.47	18(60.00)	12(40.00)
试验组	30	29(96.67)	1(3.33)	71.53±6.18	1(3.33)	29(96.67)	27(90.00)	2( 6.67)	1(3.33)	23.06±1.52	20(66.67)	10(33.33)
χ²/t		0.000		0.386	0.000		0.219			0.544	0.536
P		>0.999		0.701	>0.999		0.896			0.589	0.592

组别	例数	性别[例(%)]		年龄(岁,±s)	疝部位[例(%)]		Gilbert分型[例(%)]			体重指数[例(%)]	美国麻醉医师分级[例(%)]
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(岁,±s)	双侧疝	单侧疝	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	体重指数[例(%)]	Ⅰ	Ⅱ
对照组	30	29(96.67)	1(3.33)	70.90±6.45	1(3.33)	29(96.67)	26(86.67)	3(10.00)	1(3.33)	22.85±1.47	18(60.00)	12(40.00)
试验组	30	29(96.67)	1(3.33)	71.53±6.18	1(3.33)	29(96.67)	27(90.00)	2( 6.67)	1(3.33)	23.06±1.52	20(66.67)	10(33.33)
χ²/t		0.000		0.386	0.000		0.219			0.544	0.536
P		>0.999		0.701	>0.999		0.896			0.589	0.592

组别	例数	收缩压(mmHg)			舒张压(mmHg)			心率(次/min)
组别	例数	术前	手术开始30 min	差值	术前	手术开始30 min	差值	术前	手术开始30 min	差值
对照组	30	116.76±4.73	86.21±8.08	30.55±3.35	76.63±4.83	57.95±7.31	18.68±2.48	72.31±2.13	54.61±5.33	20.90±3.20
试验组	30	115.81±5.16	95.71±8.26	20.10±3.10	77.81±5.72	67.81±6.79	10.00±1.07	73.53±3.05	61.85±5.95	11.68±2.90
t		0.743	4.503	12.757	0.863	5.413	17.893	1.796	4.964	11.897
P		0.460	<0.001	<0.001	0.392	<0.001	<0.001	0.078	<0.001	<0.001

组别	例数	收缩压(mmHg)			舒张压(mmHg)			心率(次/min)
组别	例数	术前	手术开始30 min	差值	术前	手术开始30 min	差值	术前	手术开始30 min	差值
对照组	30	116.76±4.73	86.21±8.08	30.55±3.35	76.63±4.83	57.95±7.31	18.68±2.48	72.31±2.13	54.61±5.33	20.90±3.20
试验组	30	115.81±5.16	95.71±8.26	20.10±3.10	77.81±5.72	67.81±6.79	10.00±1.07	73.53±3.05	61.85±5.95	11.68±2.90
t		0.743	4.503	12.757	0.863	5.413	17.893	1.796	4.964	11.897
P		0.460	<0.001	<0.001	0.392	<0.001	<0.001	0.078	<0.001	<0.001

组别	例数	术前	术中15 min	术中30 min	手术结束时
对照组	30	36.16±0.31	36.01±0.49	35.21±0.57	35.66±0.48
试验组	30	36.27±0.37	36.29±0.57^#	36.32±0.54^#	36.41±0.50^#

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export