Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 6, 2021; 9(4): 784-791
Published online Feb 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i4.784
Published online Feb 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i4.784
Table 1 General patient information
Items | Control group, n = 50 | Experimental group, n = 50 | t value | P value |
Age in yr | 55.3 ± 7.3 | 54.7 ± 3.6 | 0.521 | > 0.05 |
Gender, F/M | 28/22 | 29/21 | ||
Disease course in yr | 6.34 ± 4.31 | 6.23 ± 4.35 | 0.127 | > 0.05 |
Table 2 Scoring criteria for constipation symptoms
Score, points | Defecation frequency, times/d | Defecation time in min | Defecation exertion | Incomplete defection | Stool shape |
0 | 1-2 | < 5 | Easy | No | B4-7 |
1 | 2-3 | 5-15 | Force required | Mild (occasionally) | B3 |
2 | 3-5 | 15-30 | Excessive force required | Moderate (often) | B2 |
3 | ≥ 5 | ≥ 30 | Kaiserol or hand required to help defecate | Severe (frequently) | B1 |
Table 3 Bristol standard classification
B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | B6 | B7 |
Scattered and hard | Sausage-like clumps | Dry and cracked sausage-like | Smooth and soft sausage-like | Soft and lumpy | Mushy stool | Watery stool |
Table 4 Scores of constipation symptoms before and after treatment
Control, n = 50 | Experiment, n = 50 | |||||
Defecation | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | t value | P value |
Frequency | 2.25 ± 0.71 | 0.92 ± 0.43 | 2.27 ± 0.52 | 0.67 ± 0.58 | 2.448 | < 0.05 |
Time | 2.33 ± 0.26 | 0.83 ± 0.27 | 2.31 ± 0.41 | 0.58 ± 0. 63 | 2.579 | < 0.05 |
Exertion | 2.30 ± 0.39 | 1.07 ± 0.15 | 2.28 ± 0.43 | 1.01 ± 0.12 | 2.209 | < 0.05 |
Incomplete | 2.01 ± 0.55 | 1.13 ± 0.21 | 2.02 ± 0.46 | 1.05 ± 0.17 | 2.094 | < 0.05 |
Hand-assisted | 2.35 ± 0.31 | 0.46 ± 0.52 | 2.37 ± 0.12 | 0.31 ± 0.10 | 2.003 | < 0.05 |
Table 5 Anorectal pressure measurement before and after treatment
Items, mmHg | Control, n = 50 | Experiment, n = 50 | t value | P value | ||
Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |||
Anal canal resting pressure | 63.25 ± 13.86 | 46.92 ± 13.43 | 63.27 ± 12.52 | 41.37 ± 11.58 | 2.213 | < 0.05 |
Maximum systolic pressure | 104.93 ± 32.18 | 122.71 ± 33.15 | 105.1 ± 31.93 | 127.62 ± 32.87 | -0.737 | < 0.05 |
Initial defecation threshold | 75.31 ± 24.42 | 58.89 ± 15.15 | 76.33 ± 25.06 | 53.28 ± 12.23 | 2.037 | < 0.05 |
Table 6 Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and Self-Rating Depression Scale scores before and after treatment
Items | Control, n = 50 | Experiment, n = 50 | t value | P value | ||
Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |||
SAS | 47.61 ± 10.37 | 37.22 ± 11.32 | 46.31 ± 11.72 | 32.61 ± 10.18 | 2.141 | < 0.05 |
SDS | 53.54 ± 9.76 | 46.18 ± 10.7 | 51.51 ± 10.57 | 40.82 ± 11.12 | 2.456 | < 0.05 |
Table 7 Patient satisfaction score
Group (n) | Satisfaction score | t value | P value |
Experiment (50) | 98.21 ± 2.56 | 13.897 | < 0.05 |
Control (50) | 89.83 ± 3.41 |
- Citation: Zhao X, Meng J, Dai J, Yin ZT. Effect of biofeedback combined with high-quality nursing in treatment of functional constipation. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(4): 784-791
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v9/i4/784.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i4.784