| Literature DB >> 35950090 |
Yu Qing Wang1, Rongrong Jiang2, Jianmin Pan2.
Abstract
In order to relieve the pain of incision after cesarean section, a method of foot and hand massage for abdominal pain of cesarean section incision under ultrasound guidance was proposed in this paper. In this paper, the experimental control method and retrospective analysis were used to relax the patients through massage, so that the pregnant women could focus on the reaction caused by hand and foot massage, distract their attention, and reduce the pain. The results showed that 60 cases of puerpera after cesarean section were divided into two groups with 30 cases in each group. The control group was only given routine care. The intervention group received 20 min hand and foot massage on the basis of routine care. The visual analog scale (VAS) of pain before, immediately after, 30 min after, and 60 min after massage in the intervention group was evaluated and recorded, and the VAS scores of the control group at the corresponding time points were recorded. The VAS score of the intervention group at each time point after massage was significantly lower than that before massage (P < 0.05), and the VAS score of the intervention group at each time point was significantly lower than that of the control group (P < 0.01). Hand and foot massage can effectively relieve incision pain after cesarean section.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35950090 PMCID: PMC9348944 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8356256
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scanning ISSN: 0161-0457 Impact factor: 1.750
Figure 1Time trend of cesarean section rate from 2019 to 2021.
Results of multifactor analysis on influencing factors of cesarean section among parturients in area B.
| Influence factor | Classification |
| SE | Wald |
| OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 20 ~ 24 = 1, 25 ~ 34 = 2, and >35 = 3 | 1.456 | 0.612 | 5.660 | 0.017 | 4.289 (1.292~1.4232) |
| Degree of education | Junior high school and below = 1, high school = 2, and college degree or above = 3 | 0.451 | 0.101 | 19.939 | <0.001 | 1.570 (1.288~1.914) |
| Registered residence (rural as reference) | City | 0.734 | 0.277 | 7.022 | 0.008 | 2.083 (1211~3.586) |
| Type of delivery hospital (township/town level as reference) | District/county level | 0.342 | 0.215 | 2.530 | 0.065 | 1.408 (0.924~2.146) |
| Municipal level and above | 1.158 | 0.329 | 12.389 | <0.001 | 3.184 (1.677~6.067) | |
| Prepregnancy BMI (kg/m2, 18.5~23.9 as reference) | <18.5 | 0.734 | 0.465 | 2.492 | 0.065 | 2.083 (0.837~5.183) |
| 24.0~ | 0.158 | 0.219 | 0.521 | 0.853 | 1.171 (0.762~1.799) | |
| >28.0 | 0.685 | 0.165 | 17.235 | <0.001 | 1.984 (1.436~2.741) | |
| Maternal type (primipara as reference) | Parturient women | -1.347 | 0.224 | 36.161 | <0.001 | 0.260 (0.168~0.403) |
| Fertility formula (multiple photos for natural pregnancy) | Assisted reproduction | 0.403 | 0.078 | 26.694 | <0.001 | 1.496 (1.284~1.743) |
| Adverse pregnancy and childbirth history (no as reference) | Yes | 0.902 | 0.450 | 4.018 | 0.045 | 2.465 (1.020~5.954) |
| Complications or complications during pregnancy (no as reference) | Yes | 2.426 | 0.545 | 19.815 | <0.001 | 11.314 (3.888~32.924) |
| Times of antenatal examination (<5 as reference) | 5~7 | 0.333 | 0.171 | 3.792 | 0.052 | 1.395 (0.998~1.951) |
| ≥8 | 0.790 | 0.379 | 4.345 | 0.047 | 2.203 (1.048~4.631) |
Figure 2Cesarean section incision.
Comparison of maternal pain scores in different delivery modes (±s, points).
| Mode of delivery | Estimated value | True value | Recall value |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spontaneous childbirth | 3.80 ± 0.84 | 4.63 ± 0.554 | 4.42 ± 0.894 | 1.444 | 0.274 |
| Cesarean section | 3.01 ± 0.71 | 4.60 ± 0.54a | 4.04 ± 0.960 | 5.442 | 0.021 |
|
| 1.372 | -0.343 | 1.177 | ||
|
| 0.242 | 0.749 | 0.305 |
a: estimated value comparison, P < 0.05.
Comparison of pain scores of cesarean section women with different selection methods (±s, points).
| Selection method | Estimated value | True value | Recall value |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active selection | 2.86 ± 0.44 | 4.40 ± 0.53a | 3.82 ± 0.84 | 5.360 | 0.022 |
| Passive selection | 3.44 ± 1.14 | 4.80 ± 0.45a | 3.03 ± 0.97 | 8.167 | 0.006 |
|
| 0.885 | 1.002 | −2.138 | ||
|
| 0.426 | 0.374 | 0.099 |
a: estimated value comparison, P < 0.05.
Repeated measurement ANOVA results.
| Source of variation | Sum of squares of deviation from mean | Freedom | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment factors | 23.361 | 1 | 23.361 | 79.340 | <0.001 |
| Time factor | 24.389 | 2 | 12.194 | 30.276 | <0.001 |
| Processing factor ∗ time factor | 17.056 | 2 | 8.528 | 21.172 | <0.001 |
| Individual error | 2.944 | 10 | 0.294 | ||
| Repeated measurement error | 8.056 | 20 | 0.403 |
Comparison of VAS scores of the two groups at different time points (±s).
| Group | Number of cases | Before massage | Immediately after massage | 30 min after massage | 60 min after massage |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 30 | 5.50 ± 0.57 | 5.63 ± 0.72 | 5.93 ± 0.74 | 5.70 ± 0.70 | 2.301 | >0.05 |
| Intervention group | 30 | 5.53 ± 0.86 | 3.10 ± 0.801) | 2.67 ± 0.711)2) | 3.60 ± 1.001)2)3) | 110.220 | <0.01 |
|
| -0.18 | 12.88 | 17.437 | 9.391 | |||
|
| >0.05 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
1): compared with before massage, P < 0.05; 2): compared with immediately after massage, P < 0.05; 3): compared with 30 min after massage, P < 0.05.