Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Aug 16, 2022; 10(23): 8196-8204
Published online Aug 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i23.8196
Published online Aug 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i23.8196
Table 1 Comparison of postoperative rehabilitation between the two groups (mean ± SD, d)
Group | Normal temperature time | WBC recovery time | Disappearance time of pus cavity | Length of stay |
Control group (n = 60) | 2.52 ± 0.52 | 3.69 ± 0.64 | 13.56 ± 2.11 | 15.82 ± 3.06 |
Observation group (n = 60) | 2.10 ± 0.41 | 3.05 ± 0.51 | 12.31 ± 1.58 | 14.21 ± 2.29 |
t value | 4.913 | 6.058 | 3.673 | 3.263 |
P value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Table 2 Comparison of liver function indexes between the two groups (mean ± SD)
Group | AST (U/L) | ALT (U/L) | TBIL (μmol/L) | |||
Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
Control group (n = 60) | 98.25 ± 14.63 | 74.36 ± 8.96a | 90.74 ± 9.14 | 58.36 ± 7.13a | 38.45 ± 4.36 | 24.61 ± 2.18a |
Observation group (n = 60) | 100.12 ± 15.06 | 66.32 ± 7.28a | 89.65 ± 8.36 | 45.36 ± 6.21a | 37.95 ± 4.58 | 18.22 ± 2.63a |
t value | 0.690 | 5.394 | 0.682 | 10.650 | 0.612 | 14.490 |
P value | 0.492 | 0.000 | 0.497 | 0.000 | 0.541 | 0.000 |
Table 3 Comparison of neutrophil and white blood cell counts between the two groups (mean ± SD)
Group | NEUT (%) | WBC (× 109/L) | ||
Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
Control group (n = 60) | 65.36 ± 9.25 | 59.02 ± 7.41a | 13.63 ± 1.85 | 9.89 ± 1.03a |
Observation group (n = 60) | 63.95 ± 10.12 | 52.52 ± 5.64a | 13.41 ± 1.92 | 8.07 ± 0.94a |
t value | 0.797 | 5.407 | 0.639 | 10.110 |
P value | 0.427 | 0.000 | 0.524 | 0.000 |
Table 4 Comparison of depression, anxiety, and other negative emotion scores and Self-Perceived Burden Scale scores between the two groups (mean ± SD, min)
Group | SDS score | SAS score | SPBS score | |||||
Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |||
Control group (n = 60) | 53.03 ± 4.63 | 48.98 ± 4.13a | 50.96 ± 3.96 | 46.62 ± 3.42a | 31.56 ± 4.96 | 26.26 ± 4.63a | ||
Observation group (n = 60) | 52.81 ± 5.06 | 45.03 ± 3.51a | 51.01 ± 4.21 | 42.05 ± 3.87a | 32.02 ± 4.82 | 20.12 ± 3.24a | ||
t value | 0.248 | 5.645 | 0.067 | 6.854 | 0.515 | 8.416 | ||
P value | 0.804 | 0.000 | 0.947 | 0.000 | 0.607 | 0.000 |
Table 5 Comparison of compliance between the two groups, n (%)
Group | Good compliance | General compliance | Non-compliant patient | Compliance rate |
Control group (n = 60) | 20 (33.33) | 27 (45.00) | 13 (21.67) | 47 (78.33) |
Observation group (n = 60) | 31 (51.67) | 24 (40.00) | 5 (8.33) | 55 (91.67) |
χ2 | 4.183 | |||
P value | 0.041 |
Table 6 Comparison of quality of life scores between the two groups (mean ± SD, min)
Parameter | Time | Control group (n = 60) | Observation group (n = 60) | t value | P value |
Physiological function | Before intervention | 50.23 ± 5.32 | 51.02 ± 5.17 | 0.825 | 0.411 |
After intervention | 58.32 ± 4.05a | 69.98 ± 5.74a | 12.857 | 0.000 | |
Role physical | Before intervention | 65.36 ± 4.25 | 66.85 ± 5.03 | 1.753 | 0.082 |
After intervention | 74.14 ± 5.96a | 82.06 ± 5.14a | 7.795 | 0.000 | |
Body pain | Before intervention | 58.32 ± 6.32 | 57.02 ± 6.96 | 1.071 | 0.286 |
After intervention | 64.71 ± 5.82a | 75.36 ± 6.03a | 9.844 | 0.000 | |
General health | Before intervention | 66.36 ± 5.96 | 64.98 ± 6.03 | 1.261 | 0.210 |
After intervention | 72.33 ± 4.69a | 81.02 ± 5.74a | 9.081 | 0.000 | |
Vitality | Before intervention | 57.25 ± 6.33 | 57.02 ± 6.14 | 0.202 | 0.840 |
After intervention | 65.85 ± 7.02a | 74.12 ± 6.36a | 6.763 | 0.000 | |
Social function | Before intervention | 52.03 ± 7.12 | 50.96 ± 7.84 | 0.783 | 0.435 |
After intervention | 63.98 ± 6.45a | 72.05 ± 6.95a | 6.593 | 0.000 | |
Affective function | Before intervention | 57.36 ± 6.14 | 56.82 ± 7.05 | 0.447 | 0.655 |
After intervention | 66.31 ± 5.92a | 75.01 ± 6.37a | 7.749 | 0.000 | |
Mental health | Before intervention | 63.36 ± 5.65 | 65.01 ± 4.82 | 1.721 | 0.088 |
After intervention | 71.02 ± 6.32a | 77.14 ± 5.23a | 5.779 | 0.000 |
Table 7 Comparison of complications between the two groups, n (%)
Group | Incision infection | Abdominal abscess | Hemorrhage | Severe abdominal pain | Total |
Control group (n = 60) | 1 (1.67) | 3 (5.00) | 4 (6.67) | 2 (3.33) | 10 (16.67) |
Observation group (n = 60) | 1 (1.67) | 1 (1.67) | 1 (1.67) | 0 (0.00) | 3 (5.00) |
χ2 | 4.227 | ||||
P value | 0.040 |
- Citation: Shan YN, Yu Y, Zhao YH, Tang LL, Chen XM. Three-dimensional psychological guidance combined with evidence-based health intervention in patients with liver abscess treated with ultrasound. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(23): 8196-8204
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i23/8196.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i23.8196