| Literature DB >> 35075365 |
Yan Wu1, Zhenna Zhang2, Yangfan Liu2, Guangwen Shi3, Xuehai Ding4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of traditional Chinese medicine nursing on general anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia and electric resection to treat bladder cancer and its influence on tumor markers.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35075365 PMCID: PMC8783706 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7178711
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups of patients after treatment (n (%)).
| Group |
| CR | PR | SD | PD | Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group | 80 | 25 | 42 | 9 | 4 | 67 (83.75) |
| Control group | 80 | 11 | 36 | 21 | 12 | 47 (58.75) |
Figure 1The levels of tumor markers in the two groups of patients before and after treatment. (a) The comparison of the VEGF levels of the two groups of patients before and after treatment. (b) The comparison of the BTA levels of the two groups of patients before and after the treatment.
Figure 2Comparison of the immune function of the two groups of patients before and after treatment. (a) The comparison of the CD3+ levels of the two groups of patients before and after treatment. (b) The comparison of the CD4+ levels of the two groups of patients before and after treatment. (c) The comparison of the CD8+ levels of the two groups of patients before and after treatment. (d) The comparison of CD4+/CD8+ levels before and after treatment in the two groups.
Comparison of the quality of life of the two groups of patients before and after treatment .
| Index | Study group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 54.32 ± 4.36 | 55.25 ± 4.47 | 1.223 | >0.05 |
| After treatment | 75.63 ± 5.42 | 62.37 ± 5.11 | 6.742 | <0.05 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 51.25 ± 5.63 | 51.77 ± 5.71 | 0.651 | >0.05 |
| After treatment | 78.46 ± 6.52 | 64.71 ± 6.27 | 7.384 | <0.05 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 53.54 ± 5.46 | 54.08 ± 5.51 | 0.877 | >0.05 |
| After treatment | 79.66 ± 6.85 | 66.28 ± 6.42 | 11.393 | <0.05 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 56.34 ± 5.47 | 55.89 ± 5.26 | 1.027 | >0.05 |
| After treatment | 72.34 ± 6.67 | 63.71 ± 6.27 | 5.314 | <0.05 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 51.43 ± 4.15 | 51.22 ± 4.23 | 0.243 | >0.05 |
| After treatment | 78.96 ± 6.53 | 63.38 ± 5.22 | 12.731 | <0.05 |
Figure 3Comparison of the levels of inflammatory factors between the two groups of patients before and after treatment. (a) The comparison of IL-6 levels before and after treatment in the two groups of patients. (b) The comparison of CRP levels between the two groups of patients before and after treatment. (c) The comparison of TNF-α levels before and after treatment in the two groups.
Figure 4Comparison of the three-year cumulative survival rate of the two groups of patients.
Comparison of the recurrence rate between the two groups of patients during the three-year follow-up (n (%)).
| Group |
| Follow-up for 1 year | Follow-up for 2 years | Follow-up for 3 years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group | 80 | 7 (8.75) | 17 (21.25) | 26 (32.50) |
| Control group | 80 | 13 (16.25) | 29 (36.25) | 49 (61.25) |