Effect on prognosis of patients underwent laparoscope repair of abdominal external hernia using application of comprehensive approach

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.03.021

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the application of comprehensive approach in the laparoscopic repair of abdominal external hernia and its effect on the prognosis of patients.

Methods

76 patients with laparoscopic repair of abdominal external hernia who were treated in the surgery of the No. 904 hospital from January 2017 to October 2018 were randomly divided into the conventional nursing group (38 cases) and the comprehensive approach group (38 cases). All patients were treated with laparoscopic repair of abdominal external hernia. The conventional nursing group was given conventional perioperative nursing, while the comprehensive approach group was given comprehensive approach nursing. The recovery, time of incision recovery, time of pain, the score of self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), the score of self-rating depression scale (SDS) and complications were observed and compared between the two groups.

Results

After nursing, the time of anal exhaust, time of getting out of bed, time of hospitalization and time of incision recovery in the comprehensive approach group were significantly shorter than those in the conventional nursing group (P<0.05). After nursing, the scores of SAS and SDS in the two groups significantly decreased, and the scores of SAS and SDS in the comprehensive approach group were significantly lower than those in the conventional nursing group (P<0.05). After nursing, the incidence of complications in the comprehensive approach group (2.63%) was significantly lower than that in the conventional nursing group (15.79%) (P< 0.05).

Conclusion

Comprehensive approach nursing can significantly shorten the recovery time after abdominal external hernia repair, improve the negative emotions, reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, and have a good prognosis. It is worthy of clinical promotion and application.

Key words: Repair of external abdominal hernia, Postoperative recovery, Negative emotion, Complications, Comprehensive approach

Taoyan Zhu, Xue Cao, Hongyan Zhu. Effect on prognosis of patients underwent laparoscope repair of abdominal external hernia using application of comprehensive approach[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(03): 270-273.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.03.021

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V13/I03/270

Figures/Tables 3

References 20

[1]	文斌. 腹外疝采用无张力修补术治疗的临床体会[J]. 数理医药学杂志, 2016, 29(5): 72-774.
[2]	Huang DY, Pan L, Chen MY, et al. Laparoscopic repair via the transabdominal preperitoneal procedure for bilateral lumbar hernia: Three cases report and review of literature[J]. World J Clin Cases, 2018, 6(10): 398-405.
[3]	曹松山，刘晓玲，裴保方, 等. 小儿腹股沟疝修补术围手术期预防用药干预管理与效果评价[J]. 中国医院药学杂志, 2017, 37(15): 1522-1525.
[4]	Blair AB, Dwarakanath A, Mehta A, et al. Postoperative urinary retention after inguinal hernia repair: a single institution experience[J]. Hernia, 2017, 21(6): 895-900.
[5]	代江涛，吴春，潘征夏, 等. 新生儿先天性膈疝诊治的回顾性分析[J]. 重庆医科大学学报, 2014, 39(9): 1264-1267.
[6]	邵艳秋，黄建才. 腹外疝患者护理中快速康复理念的应用效果分析[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 10(2): 150-151.
[7]	梁颖. 腹外疝患者术后排尿困难的原因分析及护理对策[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2016, 13(16): 2338-2340.
[8]	李博，刘燕. 全自动超声容积断层扫描与传统超声在腹外疝患者的临床诊断价值[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 297-299.
[9]	罗坤，庞明辉，侯能易, 等. 腰疝的临床与治疗研究进展[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2015, 9(1): 78-79.
[10]	郑芝欣，谷明，李云蕊. 清洁切口围手术期未应用抗菌药物的临床观察[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2014, 24(15): 3693-3695.
[11]	蔡凤霞，张雅梅. 观察临床综合路径护理干预防治长期卧床老年患者下肢深静脉血栓形成的效果[J]. 血栓与止血学, 2018, 24(3): 535-536+538.
[12]	唐玲，皮远萍，伍青, 等. 三级双路径护理质量管理模式的实践与成效[J]. 护理管理杂志, 2018, 18(9): 652-656.
[13]	Jairam AP, Kaufmann R, Muysoms F, et al. The feasibility of local anesthesia for the surgical treatment of umbilical hernia: a systematic review of the literature[J]. Hernia, 2017, 21(2): 223-231.
[14]	黄小琼. 临床路径护理对子宫肌瘤患者围术期负性情绪及护理满意度的影响[J]. 中国妇幼健康研究, 2017, 28(3): 39.
[15]	周秀婷，吴敏卿. 健康教育路径在剖宫产护理中的应用效果评价[J]. 中国健康教育, 2014, 30(10): 944-946.
[16]	胡先锋，张娟，藤亚丽. 临床路径护理对子宫肌瘤患者护理满意度及健康知识掌握水平的影响[J]. 中国煤炭工业医学杂志, 2015, 18(8): 1427-1430.
[17]	乐飞，李健文. 腹腔镜技术在腹外疝治疗中的应用[J]. 外科理论与实践, 2017, 22(6): 467-470.
[18]	王乐，郑雪梅，刘晓晨, 等. 综合路径在老年腹外疝无张力修补术患者围手术期中的应用效果分析[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(2): 133-136.
[19]	Melkemichel M, Bringman S, Widhe B. Lower recurrence rate with heavyweight mesh compared to lightweight mesh in laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal(TEP) repair of groin hernia: a nationwide population-based register study[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(6): 989-997.
[20]	丁李英，强晓玲，郭兰, 等. 临床护理路径对老年精神分裂症患者的病情及护理满意度的影响[J]. 国际精神病学杂志, 2018, 45(6): 1096-1098.

组别	例数	肛门排气时间(h)	下床活动时间(h)	住院时间(d)
综合路径组	38	24.48±2.65	14.61±2.47	5.12±0.41
常规护理组	38	29.28±3.47	17.54±2.83	7.81±0.53
t值		6.78	4.81	24.75
P值		<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

组别	例数	肛门排气时间(h)	下床活动时间(h)	住院时间(d)
综合路径组	38	24.48±2.65	14.61±2.47	5.12±0.41
常规护理组	38	29.28±3.47	17.54±2.83	7.81±0.53
t值		6.78	4.81	24.75
P值		<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

时间	组别	例数	SAS	SDS
护理前	综合路径组	38	54.56±3.92	56.35±2.35
	常规护理组	38	54.82±3.42	56.22±2.84
	t值		0.31	0.22
	P值		0.76	0.83
护理后	综合路径组	38	33.15±5.36^a	38.31±4.31^a
	常规护理组	38	43.26±6.74^a	44.39±5.36^a
	t值		7.24	5.45
	P值		0.00	0.00

时间	组别	例数	SAS	SDS
护理前	综合路径组	38	54.56±3.92	56.35±2.35
	常规护理组	38	54.82±3.42	56.22±2.84
	t值		0.31	0.22
	P值		0.76	0.83
护理后	综合路径组	38	33.15±5.36^a	38.31±4.31^a
	常规护理组	38	43.26±6.74^a	44.39±5.36^a
	t值		7.24	5.45
	P值		0.00	0.00

组别	例数	切口感染(例)	阴囊血肿(例)	黏连性肠梗阻(例)	并发症发生率(%)
综合路径组	38	1	0	0	2.63^a
常规护理组	38	3	2	1	15.79

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export