RESUMEN
AIM: To assess the effect of refined management in the operating room nursing on surgical efficiency and nursing satisfaction during laparoscopic radical resection of colon cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 100 patients with laparoscopic radical resection of colon cancer were enrolled into this study. There were 51 patients who received refined management (the observation group) and 49 patients who received routine nursing intervention (the control group). The effect of refined management in the operating room nursing was evaluated by comparing the surgical efficiency, quality of care ratings, pain scores, and the nursing satisfaction between the two groups. RESULTS: The preoperative preparation time, surgical time, intraoperative bleeding volume, and time to first postoperative defecation in the observation group were all less than those in the control group after nursing intervention (all P<0.05). The observation group had higher scores than the control group in five categories: operating room environment and safety, drug and instrument management, hygiene and sterilization, nursing records, and nursing professionalism (all P<0.05). The numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores of the patients in the observation group were lower than those of the control group at 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively (all P<0.05). The rate of satisfaction in the observation group was 96.1%. This was higher than the 91.8% in the control group (P<0.05). The multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that refined management intervention is an independent factor for patients' prognosis. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a refined management model in the operating room is effective in improving the quality of surgical care and surgical efficiency, and increasing patient satisfaction with nursing staff.
RESUMEN
AIM: To investigate the effects of "Timing It Right (TIR)" nursing on clinical outcome and psychological resilience in lung cancer patients undergoing radical thoracoscopic surgery. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 60 patients from January 2022 to June 2023 were studied. Among them, observation group received TIR intervention (n = 34), while control group received routine nursing intervention (n = 26). The self-care ability, psychological resilience, quality of life (QoL), postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, and postoperative pulmonary function recovery were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The scores of ESCA (Exercise of Self-Care Agency) and CD-RISC (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale), lung function, and QoL-C30 in observation group were significantly higher than those in control group after discharge, while the incidence of postoperative complications in observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (all P<0.05). Furthermore, time to first bedtime activity and chest drain removal, and the length of postoperative hospitalization in the observation group were obviously shorter than those in the control group (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: TIR nursing can effectively enhance the self-care ability of lung cancer patients undergoing radical thoracoscopic surgery, improve their psychological elasticity, enhance their quality of life, shorten the hospitalization time, and reduce the incidence of adverse reactions.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Controversy exists regarding whether prostatectomy benefits localized prostate cancer patients; the aim of our study was to evaluate the role of prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science through March 22, 2019, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify randomized studies reporting on prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer patients. RESULTS: Of a total of 1827 studies, six were considered for evidence synthesis. A total of 2524 patients in 3 studies were included for survival analysis, where 1256 patients received prostatectomy and 1268 patients received no treatment but were regularly followed up. Three other studies were included for adverse effects analysis. Prostatectomy displayed a significantly decreased risk of death of 9% compared with that of observation for patients with localized prostate cancer (risk ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.97; p = 0.007). Pooled data indicated that prostatectomy reduced the risk of disease progression by 43% (risk ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.70; p < 0.00001). Anxiety, depressed mood, well-being, and sense of meaningfulness for patients were not different between the prostatectomy and observation groups. However, prostatectomy increased the risk of erectile dysfunction by 2.10-fold (risk ratio = 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-3.26; p = 0.0009) and the risk of urinary function problems by 2.02-fold (risk ratio = 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-3.54; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Prostatectomy prolonged survival and deferred disease progression compared to observation for patients with localized prostate cancer. Symptoms between the two groups were not significantly different except for erectile and urinary function. Patients should decide on prostatectomy after balancing the survival benefit and risk of erectile dysfunction.
