| Literature DB >> 30116276 |
Nooredin Mohammadi1, Ali Pooria2, Sajad Yarahmadi3, Mohammad Javad Tarrahi4, Hassan Najafizadeh3, Payam Abbasi5, Behzad Moradi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chest tube removal is considered a painful technique, which may not respond well to palliative therapies. There are no standard procedures or guidelines to manage the pain associated with chest tube removal. This study aimed to examine the effects of cold application on pain reduction during and after chest tube removal.Entities:
Keywords: Chest tube; Cryotherapy; Pain; Visual analog scale
Year: 2018 PMID: 30116276 PMCID: PMC6087532
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tanaffos ISSN: 1735-0344
Figure 1.Consort Flow Diagram
Comparison of baseline and demographic characteristics among the study groups
| 58.9±8.3 | 56.8±9.2 | P=0.26 | |
| P=0.93 | |||
| Female | 15(34.9%) | 15(34.1%) | |
| Male | 28(65.1%) | 29(65.9%) | |
| P=0.88 | |||
| 18.5> | 2(4.7%) | 3(6.8%) | |
| 18.8–24.9 | 22(51.2%) | 21(47.7%) | |
| 25–29.9 | 19(44.2%) | 20(45.5%) | |
| P=0.32 | |||
| Illiterate | 9(20.9%) | 16(36.4%) | |
| Under Diploma | 18(41.9%) | 17(38.6%) | |
| Diploma | 11(25.6%) | 9(20.5%) | |
| University | 5(11.6%) | 2(4.5%) | |
| P=0.92 | |||
| Unemployed | 3(7%) | 3(6.8%) | |
| Housewife | 8(18.6%) | 10(22.7%) | |
| Working | 22(51.2%) | 23(52.3%) | |
| Retired | 10(23.3) | 8(18.2%) | |
| P=0.37 | |||
| Single | 1(2.3%) | 4(9.1%) | |
| Married | 34(79.1%) | 33(75%) | |
| Divorced | 0(0%) | 1(2.3%) | |
| Wife feet | 8(18.6%) | 6 (13.6%) | |
| P=0.26 | |||
| Valve surgery | 11(25.6%) | 7(15.9%) | |
| CABG | 32(74.4%) | 37(84.1%) | |
| P=0.42 | |||
| YES | 6(14%) | 9(20.5%) | |
| NO | 37(86%) | 35(79.5%) | |
| P=0.47 | |||
| YES | 6(14%) | 4(9.1%) | |
| NO | 37(86%) | 40(90.9%) | |
| P=0.22 | |||
| YES | 5(11.6%) | 2(4.5%) | |
| NO | 38(88.4%) | 42(95.5%) |
Abbreviations: BMI, Body mass index
Data are presented as No. (%) or mean ± SD.
Independent t-test.
Chi-square test.
Comparison of pain intensity scores among the study groups at different time
| 2.23±1.02 | 3.58±1.09 | 0.72±0.79 | P<0.001 | |
| 1.91±1.21 | 4.73±1.08 | 0.89±0.97 | P<0.001 | |
| P=0.18 | P<0.001 | P=0.38 | P<0.001 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD.
Figure 2.Trend of changes in pain intensity in the study groups during the study