Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Clin Cases. Aug 26, 2024; 12(24): 5483-5491
Published online Aug 26, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i24.5483
Published online Aug 26, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i24.5483
Table 1 Comparison of general data [n (%), mean ± SD]
| Groups | Control group (n = 55) | Research group (n = 65) | χ2/t | P value |
| Age (years) | 51.23 ± 11.28 | 54.55 ± 10.77 | 1.646 | 0.102 |
| Sex | 0.616 | 0.432 | ||
| Female | 19 (34.55) | 27 (41.54) | ||
| Male | 36 (65.45) | 38 (58.46) | ||
| Eating habits | 0.677 | 0.411 | ||
| Light | 14 (25.45) | 21 (32.31) | ||
| Greasy | 41 (74.55) | 44 (67.69) | ||
| Working status | 0.271 | 0.603 | ||
| Employed | 22 (40.00) | 23 (35.38) | ||
| Unemployed | 33 (60.00) | 42 (64.62) | ||
| Educational level | 0.808 | 0.369 | ||
| ≥ high school | 23 (41.82) | 22 (33.85) | ||
| < high school | 32 (58.18) | 43 (66.15) | ||
| ASA grade | 0.103 | 0.748 | ||
| I | 27 (49.09) | 30 (46.15) | ||
| II | 28 (50.91) | 35 (53.85) | ||
| TNM stage | 0.073 | 0.788 | ||
| T1 | 19 (34.55) | 24 (36.92) | ||
| T2 | 36 (65.45) | 41 (63.08) | ||
| Pathological type | 0.809 | 0.667 | ||
| Papillary adenocarcinoma | 29 (52.73) | 37 (56.92) | ||
| Tubular adenocarcinoma | 16 (29.09) | 20 (30.77) | ||
| Mucinous adenocarcinoma | 10 (18.18) | 8 (12.31) |
Table 2 Comparison of perioperative indicators (mean ± SD)
| Groups | Control group (n = 55) | Research group (n = 65) | χ2 | P value |
| Operation time (min) | 54.91 ± 9.08 | 47.95 ± 7.23 | 4.673 | < 0.001 |
| Awakening time (h) | 34.05 ± 6.30 | 27.26 ± 4.68 | 6.762 | < 0.001 |
| Anal exhaust time (h) | 19.16 ± 4.16 | 15.28 ± 3.77 | 5.357 | < 0.001 |
| First postoperative ambulation time (h) | 8.42 ± 2.64 | 7.14 ± 2.28 | 2.850 | 0.005 |
| Drainage tube removal time (h) | 6.16 ± 1.41 | 5.35 ± 1.87 | 2.639 | 0.009 |
| Intestinal function recovery time (h) | 28.22 ± 5.56 | 22.85 ± 5.65 | 5.226 | < 0.001 |
| Hospitalization time (d) | 8.73 ± 2.74 | 7.57 ± 2.38 | 2.482 | 0.015 |
Table 3 Comparison of postoperative complications, n (%)
| Groups | Control group (n = 55) | Research group (n = 65) | t | P value |
| Infection | 2 (3.64) | 1 (1.54) | - | - |
| Agitation | 4 (7.27) | 0 | - | - |
| Anastomotic fistula | 1 (1.82) | 0 | - | - |
| Nausea and vomiting | 6 (10.91) | 4 (6.15) | - | - |
| Ileus | 2 (3.64) | 1 (1.54) | - | - |
| Total incidence | 15 (27.27) | 6 (9.23) | 6.717 | 0.010 |
Table 4 Comparison of nursing satisfaction scores, n (%)
| Groups | Control group (n = 55) | Research group (n = 65) | χ2 | P value |
| Satisfied | 12 (21.82) | 30 (46.15) | - | - |
| Basically satisfied | 30 (54.55) | 32 (49.23) | - | - |
| Dissatisfied | 13 (23.64) | 3 (4.62) | - | - |
| Overall satisfaction | 42 (76.36) | 62 (95.38) | 9.328 | 0.002 |
- Citation: Wang XP, Niu M. Influence of humanistic care-based operating room nursing on safety, recovery, and satisfaction after radical surgery for colorectal carcinoma. World J Clin Cases 2024; 12(24): 5483-5491
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v12/i24/5483.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v12.i24.5483
