| Literature DB >> 35280513 |
Jinchun Zhang1, Li Zhang2, Lei Cao3.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the efficacy of Bushen Yiqi Huayu Decoction on ovarian reserve and inflammatory factors in patients after hysterectomy plus salpingectomy.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35280513 PMCID: PMC8906936 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5866685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Comparison of baseline data.
| Items | Study group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 45.52 ± 6.81 | 45.64 ± 6.78 | 0.068 | 0.946 |
| Operation time (min) | 85.14 ± 9.93 | 84.38 ± 9.87 | 0.297 | 0.767 |
| Intraoperative bleed (ml) | 39.81 ± 15.15 | 40.24 ± 15.21 | 0.110 | 0.913 |
| Menstrual period (d) | 29.43 ± 4.24 | 29.36 ± 2.25 | 0.080 | 0.937 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.38 ± 4.23 | 25.34 ± 4.26 | 0.036 | 0.971 |
|
| ||||
| Type of disease | ||||
| Uterine fibroids | 12 | 12 | 1.089 | 0.780 |
| Endometrial polyps | 8 | 6 | ||
| Functional uterine hemorrhage | 5 | 8 | ||
| Adenomyosis | 5 | 4 | ||
|
| ||||
| Type of surgery | ||||
| Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy | 10 | 12 | 0.287 | 0.592 |
| Hysterectomy with unilateral salpingectomy | 20 | 18 | ||
|
| ||||
| Parity | ||||
| 0 | 8 | 7 | 0.315 | 0.854 |
| 1 | 18 | 20 | ||
| ≥2 | 4 | 3 | ||
|
| ||||
| Education level | ||||
| Elementary school and below | 5 | 4 | 0.302 | 0.860 |
| Middle school | 19 | 21 | ||
| Junior college and above | 6 | 5 | ||
Comparison of TCM symptom scores ().
| Groups | Case ( | Before treatment | After treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 30 | 25.24 ± 4.36 | 12.52 ± 5.84 |
| Study group | 30 | 25.15 ± 3.92 | 8.76 ± 6.50 |
|
| — | 0.084 | 2.356 |
|
| — | 0.933 | 0.021 |
Comparison of TCM efficacy (n(%)).
| Groups | Case ( | Markedly effective | Effective | Ineffective | Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 30 | 10 (33.33) | 13 (43.33) | 7 (23.33) | 23 (76.67) |
| Study group | 30 | 11 (36.67) | 18 (60.00) | 1 (3.33) | 29 (96.67) |
|
| — | — | — | — | 5.192 |
|
| — | — | — | — | 0.022 |
Comparison of postoperative recovery time ().
| Groups | Case ( | Recovery time of bowel sounds (h) | Exhaustion time (h) | Defecation time (d) | Time of pain disappearance (d) | Time of menstruation recovery (d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 30 | 25.27 ± 5.66 | 72.47 ± 6.44 | 3.16 ± 1.32 | 5.27 ± 2.44 | 38.27 ± 9.77 |
| Study group | 30 | 18.96 ± 6.84 | 50.47 ± 7.23 | 1.43 ± 0.63 | 2.78 ± 1.96 | 26.46 ± 9.97 |
| t | — | 3.892 | 12.445 | 6.478 | 4.357 | 4.634 |
|
| — | ≤0.001 | ≤0.001 | ≤0.001 | ≤0.001 | ≤0.001 |
Comparison of inflammatory response indexes ().
| Groups | Case ( | TNF- | IL-6 (ng/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
| Control group | 30 | 85.54 ± 5.63 | 38.98 ± 3.57 | 35.39 ± 4.45 | 16.95 ± 2.64 |
| Study group | 30 | 85.28 ± 5.65 | 31.36 ± 3.34 | 34.90 ± 5.23 | 10.42 ± 2.53 |
|
| — | 0.178 | 8.537 | 0.390 | 9.781 |
|
| — | 0.858 | ≤0.001 | 0.697 | ≤0.001 |
Comparison of hormone level ().
| Groups | Case ( | LH (mIU/ml) | FSH (mIU/ml) | E2 (pg/ml) | Progesterone (ng/ml) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
| Control group | 30 | 63.29 ± 8.75 | 46.18 ± 7.63 | 18.16 ± 0.82 | 12.54 ± 0.69 | 126.58 ± 0.85 | 75.20 ± 0.83 | 13.38 ± 1.37 | 7.38 ± 1.68 |
| Study group | 30 | 62.86 ± 6.52 | 41.63 ± 7.28 | 18.24 ± 0.59 | 10.46 ± 0.93 | 126.66 ± 0.94 | 64.93 ± 0.58 | 13.26 ± 1.19 | 5.92 ± 1.53 |
|
| — | 0.215 | 2.363 | 0.433 | 9.838 | 0.345 | 55.552 | 0.362 | 3.519 |
|
| — | 0.829 | 0.021 | 0.666 | ≤0.001 | 0.730 | ≤0.001 | 0.718 | ≤0.001 |