Copyright
©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 26, 2023; 11(6): 1330-1340
Published online Feb 26, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i6.1330
Published online Feb 26, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i6.1330
Table 1 Comparison of general data between the two groups
| Clinical information | Test group, n = 40 | Control group, n = 40 | t/χ2 | P value |
| Average age (yr), mean ± SD | 62.76 ± 10.43 | 62.18 ± 10.39 | 0.249 | 0.803 |
| Gender, n (%) | ||||
| Male | 24 (60) | 25 (62.5) | 0.053 | 0.818 |
| Female | 16 (40) | 15 (38.5) | ||
| Average disease duration (mo), mean ± SD | 6.47 ± 1.32 | 63.6 ± 6.5 | 0.636 | 0.527 |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD | 23.52 ± 3.68 | 23.47 ± 3.97 | 0.058 | 0.9536 |
Table 2 Comparison of pulmonary function indicators between the two groups (mean ± SD)
| Indicators | Time | Test group, n = 40 | Control group, n = 40 | t value | P value |
| SpO2 (%) | Before the intervention | 95.68 ± 10.26 | 95.35 ± 10.17 | 0.144 | 0.885 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 98.86 ± 4.26 | 96.04 ± 3.57 | 3.209 | 0.002 | |
| VC (L) | Before the intervention | 2.96 ± 0.36 | 2.91 ± 0.33 | 0.648 | 0.519 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 3.64 ± 0.63 | 3.18 ± 0.46 | 3.567 | < 0.001 | |
| MVV (L/min) | Before the intervention | 83.74 ± 4.18 | 83.92 ± 4.24 | 0.191 | 0.849 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 89.46 ± 7.56 | 85.02 ± 6.38 | 2.839 | 0.006 | |
| FEV1 (L) | Before the intervention | 1.53 ± 0.24 | 1.57 ± 0.25 | 1.095 | 0.276 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 2.56 ± 0.76 | 2.09 ± 0.53 | 3.208 | 0.002 | |
| FEV1% pred (%) | Before the intervention | 61.27 ± 8.03 | 60.94 ± 7.42 | 0.191 | 0.849 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 69.48 ± 9.35 | 63.56 ± 7.94 | 3.052 | 0.003 | |
| FEV1/FVC (%) | Before the intervention | 67.22 ± 8.37 | 67.16 ± 8.24 | 0.032 | 0.974 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 76.82 ± 10.46 | 70.05 ± 9.68 | 3.004 | 0.003 |
Table 3 Comparison of blood gas between the two groups (mean ± SD)
| Indicators | Time | Test group, n = 40 | Control group, n = 40 | t value | P value |
| PaO2 (mmHg) | Before the intervention | 90.67 ± 11.24 | 90.32 ± 11.15 | 0.139 | 0.889 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 98.45 ± 9.46 | 93.28 ± 8.89 | 2.524 | 0.013 | |
| PaCO2 (mmHg) | Before the intervention | 50.39 ± 5.27 | 50.12 ± 5.06 | 0.233 | 0.815 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 42.85 ± 3.84 | 46.08 ± 4.38 | 3.507 | < 0.001 |
Table 4 Comparison of MD Anderson Symptom Inventory scores between the two groups (mean ± SD)
| Programs | Time | MDASI score | t value | P value | |
| Test group, n = 40 | Control, group n = 40 | ||||
| Cough | Before the intervention | 7.28 ± 0.72 | 7.31 ± 0.74 | 0.183 | 0.854 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 5.62 ± 0.53 | 6.54 ± 0.62 | 7.134 | < 0.001 | |
| Expectoration | Before the intervention | 7.43 ± 0.78 | 7.52 ± 0.79 | 0.512 | 0.609 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 5.08 ± 0.52 | 6.29 ± 0.64 | 9.280 | < 0.001 | |
| Hemoptysis | Before the intervention | 4.63 ± 0.51 | 4.48 ± 0.49 | 1.341 | 0.183 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 3.26 ± 0.36 | 4.17 ± 0.48 | 9.592 | < 0.001 | |
| Chest distress | Before the intervention | 5.89 ± 0.63 | 5.91 ± 0.66 | 0.138 | 0.890 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 3.84 ± 0.39 | 4.52 ± 0.48 | 6.954 | < 0.001 | |
| Weight loss | Before the intervention | 4.62 ± 0.57 | 4.39 ± 0.54 | 1.853 | 0.067 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 3.08 ± 0.31 | 3.78 ± 0.39 | 8.886 | < 0.001 | |
| Total | Before the intervention | 29.85 ± 3.21 | 29.61 ± 3.22 | 0.333 | 0.739 |
| 3 mo after the intervention | 20.88 ± 2.11 | 25.30 ± 2.61 | 8.329 | < 0.001 | |
Table 5 Comparison of the incidence of pulmonary complications between the two groups, n (%)
| Group | Surgical incision infection | Surgical incision bleeding | Atelectasis | Pulmonary infection | Respiratory failure | Overall incidence rate |
| Test group, n = 40 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.50) | 1 (2.50) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (5.00) |
| Control group, n = 40 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 3 (7.50) | 6 (12.50) | 0 (0.00) | 9 (22.50) |
| χ2 | 5.165 | |||||
| P value | 0.023 |
Table 6 Comparison of treatment compliance between the two groups, n (%)
| Group | Before the intervention | 3 mo after the intervention | ||||
| Good | Moderate | Poor | Good | Moderate | Poor | |
| Test group, n = 40 | 6 (15.00) | 28 (70.00) | 6 (15.00) | 24 (60.00) | 11 (27.50) | 5 (12.00) |
| Control group, n = 40 | 9 (22.50) | 26 (65.00) | 5 (12.00) | 13 (32.50) | 22 (55.00) | 5 (12.00) |
| χ2 | 0.765 | 6.937 | ||||
| P value | 0.682 | 0.031 | ||||
Table 7 Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups, n (%)
| Group | Very satisfied | Satisfied | Fairly satisfied | Dissatisfied | Satisfaction rate |
| Test group, n = 40 | 26 (65.00) | 12 (30.00) | 2 (5.00) | 0 (0.00) | 38 (95.00) |
| Control group, n = 40 | 12 (30.00) | 21 (52.50) | 5 (12.00) | 2 (5.00) | 33 (82.50) |
| χ2 | 7.825 | ||||
| P value | 0.005 |
- Citation: Qiu QX, Li WJ, Ma XM, Feng XH. Effect of continuous nursing combined with respiratory exercise nursing on pulmonary function of postoperative patients with lung cancer. World J Clin Cases 2023; 11(6): 1330-1340
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v11/i6/1330.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v11.i6.1330
