| Literature DB >> 34925740 |
Yueqiu Gong1, Li Zhu1.
Abstract
FI is mainly caused by functional disturbance in premature infants, which greatly poses a threat to their growth and development, so a large number of studies on the clinical features of FI should be conducted to provide theoretical support for treatment. The purpose of the study was to investigate the therapeutic effect of acupoint massage on Zusanli on premature infants with feeding intolerance (FI) and their clinical symptoms. A total of 60 premature infants with FI admitted to our hospital over the past two years were selected as the FI group, and another 60 premature infants without FI were selected as the control group. The birthweight and gestational age of the premature infants in the FI group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.001), whereas there were no significant differences in general information of the premature infants between the two groups (P > 0.05). Vomiting, abdominal distension, and gastric retention are the main clinical symptoms of premature infants with FI, and acupoint massage on Zusanli combined with routine treatment can effectively improve digestive function, relieve clinical symptoms, and shorten treatment time of premature infants with FI, which is worthy of application and promotion in clinical practice.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34925740 PMCID: PMC8677363 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7772543
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Comparison of the general information of the premature infants between group A and group B.
| Group | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.250 | 0.617 | ||
|
| 15 | 17 | ||
|
| 15 | 13 | ||
| Gestational age | 30.2 ± 2.1 | 30.5 ± 1.9 | 0.580 | 0.564 |
| Birthweight | 1258.1 ± 269.2 | 1258.5 ± 270.2 | 0.006 | 0.995 |
| Apgar score | 9.3 ± 0.2 | 9.3 ± 0.3 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| Anoxia after birth | No | No | —— | —— |
| Placenta | Normal | Normal | —— | —— |
| Delivery mode | 0.074 | 0.785 | ||
|
| 14 | 13 | ||
|
| 16 | 17 | ||
| Perinatal infection | No | No | —— | —— |
Comparison of the general information of the premature infants between the FI group and the control group.
| Group | FI group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.032 | 0.859 | ||
|
| 32/28 | 31/29 | ||
| Gestational age (weeks) | 30.4 ± 2.0 | 32.3 ± 1.8 | 5.470 | ≤0.001 |
| Birthweight (g) | 1258.1 ± 273.2 | 1486.5 ± 328.4 | 4.142 | ≤0.001 |
| Maternal age (years old) | 30.5 ± 1.5 | 30.6 ± 1.8 | 0.331 | 0.742 |
| Delivery mode | 0.036 | 0.849 | ||
|
| 27 | 28 | ||
|
| 33 | 32 | ||
| Complications during pregnancy | 0.018 | 0.894 | ||
|
| 57 | 56 | ||
|
| 3 | 4 |
Clinical symptoms of the premature infants in the FI group (n (%)).
| Group | Types | Cases | Vomiting | Abdominal distension | Gastric retention | Hypoglycemia | Weight loss of more than 15 g/d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gestational age (weeks) | <30 | 21 | 4 (19.0) | 11 (52.4) | 10 (47.6) | 5 (23.8) | 4 (19.0) |
| 30–35 | 19 | 4 (21.1) | 4 (21.1) | 5 (26.3) | 2 (10.5) | 2 (10.5) | |
| 36–37 | 20 | 9 (45.0) | 4 (20.0) | 7 (35.0) | 2 (10.0) | 2 (10.0) | |
| Weight (g) | <1500 | 25 | 8 (32.0) | 12 (48.0) | 6 (24.0) | 3 (12.0) | 3 (12.0) |
| 1500–2500 | 30 | 8 (26.7) | 9 (30.0) | 9 (30.0) | 5 (16.7) | 6 (20.0) | |
| >2500 | 5 | 4 (80.0) | 1 (20.0) | 1 (20.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (20.0) | |
| Breastfeeding initiation time (h) | ≥72 | 32 | 10 (31.3) | 15 (46.9) | 15 (46.9) | 3 (9.4) | 2 (6.3) |
| <72 | 28 | 3 (10.7) | 4 (14.3) | 5 (17.9) | 2 (7.1) | 2 (7.1) |
Comparison of the digestive function of the premature infants between group A and group B after treatment ( ± s).
| Group |
| Daily increased breast milk volume (ml) | Daily defecation frequency (times) | Meconium emptying time (d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 30 | 13.5 ± 3.2 | 3.8 ± 2.0 | 3.3 ± 0.2 |
| Group B | 30 | 11.0 ± 2.7 | 2.7 ± 0.5 | 4.1 ± 0.5 |
|
| 3.270 | 2.923 | 8.137 | |
|
| 0.002 | 0.005 | <0.001 |
Figure 1Comparison of the observation indexes of intolerance between group A and group B after treatment.
Figure 2Comparison of the other treatment indexes between group A and group B.