| Literature DB >> 30116533 |
Farzad Momenfar1, Alireza Abdi1,2, Nader Salari2, Ali Soroush3, Behzad Hemmatpour4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main problem of hospitalized patients in intensive care units is feeding, and if the patient does not receive the daily caloric intake required to his body, he will have malnutrition and problems related to it. Abdominal massage is a method used to improve digestive function in various studies, but few studies have been conducted in intensive care units, and sometimes, contradictory results have been obtained. Therefore, the present study is conducted with the aim of determining the effect of abdominal massage on the gastric residual volume in patients hospitalized in intensive care units.Entities:
Keywords: Abdominal massage; Intensive care unit; Residual volume
Year: 2018 PMID: 30116533 PMCID: PMC6086016 DOI: 10.1186/s40560-018-0317-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Intensive Care ISSN: 2052-0492
Fig. 1Stage one, brushing on the abdomen skin
Fig. 2Stage two, the dominant hand is placed on the abdominal skin and the other hand on it with appropriate presser, the skin drown
Fig. 3Stage three, the abdominal skin shape is changed with rubbing
Fig. 4Stage four, the shake movements in line with armpit from top to down and vice versa
Fig. 5Stage five, the fingers are placed between intercostal spaces and pulled appropriately
Demographic characteristics of two groups based on the variables of sex, marital status, education, job, and age
| Variables | Case | Control | Total | Statistical test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 18 (60) | 18 (60) | 36 (60) | |
| Female | 12 (40) | 12 (40) | 24 (40) | |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single | 5 (16.7) | 5 (16.7) | 10 (16.7) | |
| Married | 25 (83.3) | 25 (83.3) | 50 (83.3) | |
| Level of education | ||||
| Illiterate | 3 (10) | 2 (6.7) | 5 (8.3) | |
| Elementary | 8 (26.7) | 6 (20) | 14 (23.3) | |
| Diploma | 8 (26.7) | 10 (33) | 18 (30) | |
| Associate | 6 (20) | 5 (16.7) | 11 (18.3) | |
| Bachelor | 5 (16.7) | 7 (23) | 12 (20) | |
| Employment status | ||||
| Unemployed | 7 (23.3) | 11 (36.7) | 18 (30) | N/A |
| Retired | 7 (23.3) | 5 (16.7) | 12 (20) | |
| Housewife | 8 (26.7) | 4 (13.3) | 12 (20) | |
| Employee | 2 (6.7) | 3 (10) | 5 (8.3) | |
| Free job | 6 (20) | 7 (23.3) | 13 (21.7) | |
| Age (mean and SD) | 60.76 ± 17.38 | 58.66 ± 14.75 | 59.72 ± 16.02 | |
N/A not applicable
Comparison of the total average of GRV before and after intervention in both groups
| Groups | Case group | Control group | Statistical test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before | 106.76 (58.56) | 108.63 (26.58) | |
| After | 97.30 (54.06) | 143.46 (39.93) | |
| Statistical test |
*is significant
Comparison of the average of GRV before intervention in the case and control groups in different days
| Variables | Groups | Average rating | Statistical test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average of GRV before intervention in first day | Case | 29.03 | |
| Control | 31.97 | ||
| Average of GRV before intervention in second day | Case | 30.45 | |
| Control | 30.55 | ||
| Average of GRV before intervention in third day | Case | 29.02 | |
| Control | 31.98 |
Comparison of the average of GRV after intervention in the case and control groups in different days
| Variables | Groups | Average rating | Statistical test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average of GRV after intervention in first day | Case | 21.52 | * |
| Control | 39.48 | ||
| Average of GRV after intervention in second day | Case | 24.53 | * |
| Control | 36.47 | ||
| Average of GRV after intervention in third day | Case | 20.25 | * |
| Control | 40.75 |
*is significant