Effect of multidimensional nursing on low anterior resection syndrome after sphincter preservation surgery for low rectal cancer

Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between patients with and without the nursing intervention, n (%)

Group		Control	Observation	χ2/t	P value
Sex	Male	38 (63.33)	35 (58.33)	0.315	0.575
	Female	22 (36.67)	25 (41.67)
Age (mean ± SD)		62.25 ± 5.06	62.40 ± 5.11	0.162	0.872
BMI (mean ± SD, kg/m2)		22.50 ± 1.72	22.45 ± 1.75	0.158	0.875
TNM	I	12 (20.00)	11 (18.33)	0.161	0.923
	II	29 (48.33)	28 (46.67)
	III	19 (31.67)	21 (35.00)

BMI: Body mass index; TNM: Tumor-node-metastasis.

Table 2 Comparison of self-efficacy between patients with and without the nursing intervention (mean ± SD, score)

Group	Cases, n	Self-determination		Positive attitude		Self-decompression
		Before	After	Before	After	Before	After
Control	60	5.70 ± 1.42	9.66 ± 1.38a	27.65 ± 3.52	46.12 ± 4.75a	20.35 ± 3.48	30.86 ± 4.04a
Observation	60	5.74 ± 1.39	10.72 ± 1.60a	27.64 ± 3.58	50.82 ± 5.91a	20.49 ± 3.50	34.07 ± 4.62a
t		0.156	3.886	0.015	4.801	0.204	4.051
P value		0.876	< 0.001	0.988	< 0.001	0.839	< 0.001

^aP < 0.05, compared with the pre-intervention of the same group.

Table 3 Comparison of symptom relief between patients with and without the nursing intervention (mean ± SD, score)

Group	Case, n	LARS
		Before	After
Control	60	28.28 ± 2.49	20.30 ± 3.16a
Observation	60	28.39 ± 2.30	17.12 ± 2.85a
t		0.251	5.789
P value		0.802	< 0.001

^aP < 0.05, compared with the pre-intervention of the same group.

LARS: Low anterior resection syndrome.

Table 4 Comparison of quality-of-life scores between patients with and without the nursing intervention (mean ± SD, score)

Group	Physiological function		Emotional function		Character function		Social function		Cognitive function		Nausea and vomiting		Exhaustion		Pain
	Before	After	Before	After	Before	After	Before	After	Before	After	Before	After	Before	After	Before	After
Control, n = 60	55.29 ± 5.41	70.60 ± 5.96a	60.01 ± 4.17	75.15 ± 4.60a	68.93 ± 4.71	82.65 ± 5.05a	62.06 ± 5.38	74.35 ± 6.09a	64.02 ± 4.48	78.85 ± 5.61a	52.81 ± 3.62	68.09 ± 4.49a	65.05 ± 4.81	77.13 ± 4.77a	56.32 ± 3.83	70.71 ± 4.58a
Observation, n = 60	55.31 ± 5.38	74.92 ± 6.49a	60.69 ± 4.20	78.32 ± 4.83a	68.89 ± 4.64	85.34 ± 5.23a	62.14 ± 5.27	78.83 ± 6.25a	63.85 ± 4.42	82.61 ± 6.05a	52.75 ± 3.76	71.60 ± 4.92a	64.82 ± 4.60	80.15 ± 5.06a	56.14 ± 3.71	74.34 ± 4.98a
t	0.02	3.798	0.89	3.681	0.047	2.866	0.082	4.003	0.209	3.53	0.089	4.082	0.268	3.364	0.261	4.156
P value	0.984	< 0.001	0.375	< 0.001	0.963	0.005	0.935	< 0.001	0.835	0.001	0.929	< 0.001	0.789	0.001	0.794	< 0.001

^aP < 0.05, compared with the pre-intervention of the same group.

Table 5 Comparison of nursing satisfaction between patients with and without the nursing intervention, n (%)

Group	Cases, n	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Dissatisfied	Overall satisfaction rate
Control	60	32 (53.33)	18 (30.00)	10 (16.67)	50 (83.33)
Observation	60	42 (70.00)	15 (25.00)	3 (5.00)	57 (95.00)
χ2					4.227
P value					0.040