Analysis of intervention effect in elderly patients with inguinal hernia using comprehensive high-quality nursing

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2024.01.023

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the clinical nursing effect of comprehensive high-quality nursing in elderly patients with inguinal hernia.

Methods

A total of 86 elderly patients with inguinal hernia admitted to the Second Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital from March 2021 to March 2023 were selected and randomly divided into the study group (n=43) and the control group (n=43). The control group was given routine nursing, while the study group was given comprehensive high-quality nursing on this basis. The two groups were compared on postoperative rehabilitation, the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) score, the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) score, General Comfort Questionnaire (GCQ) score and nursing satisfaction. The incidence rates of complications in both groups were calculated.

Results

The time to get out of bed, exhaust time and length of hospital stay in the study group were shorter than those in the control group (P<0.05). The SAS scores and SDS scores of the study group were lower than those of the control group on the day before surgery and at discharge (P<0.05). The GCQ scores of the study group in terms of environment, physiology, psychology and social culture were higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, patients in the study group were more satisfied with nursing content and nursing responsibility (P<0.05). The total incidence of complications in the study group was 2.33%, lower than 18.60% in the control group, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Comprehensive high-quality nursing can promote postoperative rehabilitation of elderly patients with inguinal hernia, improve their psychological states, comfort level and satisfaction, and reduce the risk of postoperative complications.

Key words: Comprehensive high-quality nursing, Hernia, inguinal, Nursing effect, Psychological state, Comfort level, Satisfaction

Yixiang Wang, Fangfang Yin, Yan Yan. Analysis of intervention effect in elderly patients with inguinal hernia using comprehensive high-quality nursing[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(01): 116-120.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2024.01.023

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2024/V18/I01/116

Figures/Tables 5

References 21

[1]	王海波, 何大勇. 老年腹股沟疝患者微创修补术后复发的影响因素分析及预防建议[J]. 中国现代普通外科进展, 2023, 26(2): 131-135.
[2]	Soma T, Fukuda S, Matsuyama Y, et al. Peritoneal closure and the processus vaginalis transection method to prevent inguinal hernia after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy[J]. Int J Urol, 2023, 30(6): 532-538.
[3]	Spivak J, Chan PH, Prentice HA, et al. Mesh-based inguinal hernia repairs in an integrated healthcare system and surgeon and hospital volume: a cohort study of 110, 808 patients from over a decade[J]. Hernia, 2023, 27(5): 1209-1223.
[4]	汪峰, 谢俊华, 何中文. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术对老年腹股沟疝患者呼吸功能、促胃动素的影响[J]. 中国医师进修杂志, 2023, 46(12): 1112-1116.
[5]	刘文云. 双环节协同护理模式对腹股沟疝患者术后康复及护理工作满意度的影响[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2021, 21(13): 2416-2418.
[6]	杨海利, 闫春梅. 快速康复外科护理对无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟斜疝患者满意度的影响[J]. 贵州医药, 2023, 47(1): 135-136.
[7]	张静, 孟华, 耿元元. 优质护理干预在脊柱骨折伴脊髓损伤患者中的应用[J]. 山西医药杂志, 2022, 51(21): 2504-2506.
[8]	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. 成人腹股沟疝诊疗指南(2014年版)[J]. 浙江医学, 2014, (15): 1285-1287.
[9]	任杰, 黄博. 老年腹股沟疝特点及手术方式研究进展[J]. 安徽医药, 2022, 26(9): 1697-1701.
[10]	邱欣国, 崔喆. 轻量立体3D补片对腹腔镜下经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝病人并发症、疼痛及生活质量的影响[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2022, 30(11): 1068-1071.
[11]	丁鹂, 寿宇雁. 奥马哈系统结合压力管理对心肌梗死患者介入治疗中Barthel指数、舒适度评分及GQOLI-74评分的影响[J]. 中国急救复苏与灾害医学杂志, 2021, 16(10): 1160-1162, 1166.
[12]	Fafaj A, Lo Menzo E, Alaedeen D, et al. Effect of Intraoperative Urinary Catheter Use on Postoperative Urinary Retention After Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial[J]. JAMA Surg, 2022, 157(8): 667-674.
[13]	邓先锐, 宋应寒, 杨春, 等. 老年男性腹股沟疝与肌肉质量、肌力及腹内压的相关性[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2023, 23(15): 2951-2955.
[14]	侯军辉, 梅勇. 老年腹股沟疝治疗中采取腹股沟疝无张力修补术对减少并发症的价值研究[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2021, 21(16): 2822-2824.
[15]	阮召杰, 夏悦明, 李翰城. 两种腔镜腹股沟疝手术对老年患者呼吸功能的影响及疗效分析[J].腹腔镜外科杂志, 2022, 27(12): 926-928, 943.
[16]	朱立军, 戴旭东, 庄海文, 等. 腹腔镜疝修补术治疗单侧腹股沟斜疝的临床效果[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2022, 27(9): 659-662.
[17]	胡明超, 王强, 俞文渊, 等. 经腹腹膜前疝修补术中腹股沟疝囊处理方式对术后并发症的影响分析[J].腹腔镜外科杂志, 2021, 26(4): 288-290, 298.
[18]	杨璐, 卞伶玲, 杨雨佳. 补偿差异化需求供给法在老年腹股沟疝修补术患者中的应用分析[J]. 河北医药, 2021, 43(16): 2518-2520, 2525.
[19]	王玲玲, 刘立新. 综合性优质护理在老年腹股沟疝围手术期中的价值探究[J]. 生命科学仪器, 2022, 20(z1): 180, 182.
[20]	胥方琴, 徐俊马, 韩姝, 等. 运动康复疗法在老年肌少症患者临床治疗中的应用进展[J]. 中华老年多器官疾病杂志, 2023, 22(3): 232-235.
[21]	Lorenzo IL, Tonelli CM, Bunn C, et al. Supervised independence in elective inguinal hernia repairs performed by surgical residents is not associated with compromised short clinical outcome or rates of reoperation for recurrence[J]. Am J Surg, 2022, 223(3): 470-474.

组别	例数	性别[例(%)]		年龄(岁,±s)	体重指数(kg/m²,±s)	病程(个月,±s)	美国麻醉医师协会分级[例(%)]		疝部位[例(%)]		文化程度[例(%)]
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(岁,±s)	体重指数(kg/m²,±s)	病程(个月,±s)	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	左侧	右侧	初中及以下	高中	大专及以上
研究组	43	41(95.3)	2(4.7)	67.95±5.46	22.52±1.41	78.12±8.54	19(44.2)	24(55.8)	21(48.8)	22(51.2)	10(23.3)	25(58.1)	8(18.6)
对照组	43	42(97.7)	1(2.3)	68.48±4.65	22.48±1.39	79.64±7.58	21(48.8)	22(51.2)	19(44.2)	24(55.8)	11(25.6)	25(58.1)	7(16.3)
t/χ²		0.345		1.153	0.132	1.581	0.187		0.187		0.114
P		0.557		0.252	0.895	0.118	0.665		0.665		0.944

组别	例数	性别[例(%)]		年龄(岁,±s)	体重指数(kg/m²,±s)	病程(个月,±s)	美国麻醉医师协会分级[例(%)]		疝部位[例(%)]		文化程度[例(%)]
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(岁,±s)	体重指数(kg/m²,±s)	病程(个月,±s)	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	左侧	右侧	初中及以下	高中	大专及以上
研究组	43	41(95.3)	2(4.7)	67.95±5.46	22.52±1.41	78.12±8.54	19(44.2)	24(55.8)	21(48.8)	22(51.2)	10(23.3)	25(58.1)	8(18.6)
对照组	43	42(97.7)	1(2.3)	68.48±4.65	22.48±1.39	79.64±7.58	21(48.8)	22(51.2)	19(44.2)	24(55.8)	11(25.6)	25(58.1)	7(16.3)
t/χ²		0.345		1.153	0.132	1.581	0.187		0.187		0.114
P		0.557		0.252	0.895	0.118	0.665		0.665		0.944

组别	例数	下床活动时间(h)	排气时间(h)	住院时间(d)
研究组	43	10.01±1.45	10.51±3.02	2.09±0.22
对照组	43	14.24±2.06	18.45±3.18	2.71±0.25
t		11.011	11.872	12.208
P		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	例数	下床活动时间(h)	排气时间(h)	住院时间(d)
研究组	43	10.01±1.45	10.51±3.02	2.09±0.22
对照组	43	14.24±2.06	18.45±3.18	2.71±0.25
t		11.011	11.872	12.208
P		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	例数	SAS评分			SDS评分
组别	例数	入院时	术前1 d	出院时	入院时	术前1 d	出院时
研究组	43	52.69±5.74	39.55±3.27^＊	38.28±3.35^＊	54.18±6.69	37.73±4.76^＊	36.11±5.14^＊
对照组	43	52.16±5.41	50.09±4.22	48.65±4.18^＊	53.96±6.27	50.26±5.01^＊	49.36±5.30^＊
t		0.441	12.946	2.443	0.157	11.890	11.768
P		0.661	<0.001	<0.001	0.875	<0.001	<0.001

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export