Retrospective study on the effects of different acupuncture protocols on gastrointestinal function recovery after general anesthesia gastrointestinal endoscopy

Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between the two groups, n (%)/mean ± SD

Item	Conventional group (n = 40)	Optimized group (n = 40)	t/χ2 value	P value
Gender			χ2 = 0.210	0.651
Male	22 (55.00)	24 (60.00)
Female	18 (45.00)	16 (40.00)
Age (years)	52.32 ± 9.75	50.84 ± 9.45	t = 0.708	0.481
BMI (kg/m2)	22.54 ± 2.86	23.18 ± 3.07	t = -0.985	0.327
ASA classification			χ2 = 0.521	0.472
Class I	28 (70.00)	25 (62.50)
Class II	12 (30.00)	15 (37.50)
Procedure type			χ2 = 0.681	0.712
Gastroscopy	12 (30.00)	10 (25.00)
Colonoscopy	10 (25.00)	13 (32.50)
Combined endoscopy	18 (45.00)	17 (42.50)
Propofol dosage (mg)	180.55 ± 45.34	175.89 ± 48.65	t = 0.456	0.649
Remifentanil dosage (μg)	105.24 ± 25.76	101.86 ± 28.43	t = 0.568	0.571
Procedure duration (minute)	25.82 ± 8.25	24.37 ± 7.94	t = 0.812	0.419

BMI: Body mass index; ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification.

Table 2 Comparison of gastrointestinal function recovery time between two groups (hour), mean ± SD

Group	n	Time to first flatus (hour)	Time to first defecation (hour)	Time to bowel sound recovery (hour)
Conventional group	40	8.54 ± 2.63	28.36 ± 7.97	5.78 ± 1.69
Optimized group	40	5.25 ± 1.82	21.49 ± 6.55	3.78 ± 1.44
t value	-	6.703	4.342	5.832
P value	-	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 3 Comparison of postoperative abdominal distension scores between two groups, mean ± SD

Group	n	2 hours postop	6 hours postop	12 hours postop	24 hours postop
Conventional group	40	3.11 ± 1.22	4.54 ± 1.46	3.84 ± 1.32	1.57 ± 0.86
Optimized group	40	2.93 ± 1.15	3.37 ± 1.12	2.65 ± 1.08	1.35 ± 0.79
t value	-	0.694	4.080	4.494	1.207
P value	-	0.490	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.231
Main effect of “time”	F = 85.632, P < 0.001	-	-	-	-
Main effect of “group”	F = 18.945, P < 0.001	-	-	-	-
“Time × group” interaction	F = 9.287, P < 0.001	-	-	-	-

Table 4 Comparison of postoperative abdominal pain visual analog scale scores between two groups, mean ± SD

Group	n	2 hours postop	6 hours postop	12 hours postop	24 hours postop
Conventional group	40	2.02 ± 0.93	2.85 ± 1.23	2.22 ± 1.06	0.89 ± 0.50
Optimized group	40	1.86 ± 0.82	1.94 ± 0.81	1.43 ± 0.75	0.71 ± 0.42
t value	-	0.824	4.074	3.872	1.788
P value	-	0.412	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.077
Main effect of “time”	F = 64.118, P < 0.001	-	-	-	-
Main effect of “group”	F = 14.326, P < 0.001	-	-	-	-
“Time × group” interaction	F = 5.046, P = 0.002	-	-	-	-

Table 5 Comparison of complication incidence rates between two groups, n (%)

Group	n	Nausea	Vomiting	Dizziness	Other	Total incidence
Conventional group	40	5 (12.50)	2 (5.00)	3 (7.50)	1 (2.50)	11 (27.50)
Optimized group	40	4 (10.00)	1 (2.50)	2 (5.00)	0 (0.00)	7 (17.50)
χ2 value	-	-	-	-	-	1.195
P value	-	-	-	-	-	0.274

Table 6 Comparison of patient satisfaction between two groups, n (%)

Group	n	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Dissatisfied	Total satisfaction rate
Conventional group	40	18 (45.00)	16 (40.00)	6 (15.00)	34 (85.00)
Optimized group	40	27 (67.50)	12 (30.00)	1 (2.50)	39 (97.50)
χ2 value	-	-	-	-	4.320
P value	-	-	-	-	0.038