| Literature DB >> 36082065 |
Wei Zhu1, Qiong Li1, Ju Huang1.
Abstract
The effects of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concept combined with postoperative leg pad elevation on knee enhancement, quality of life, and pain in sufferers after high tibial osteotomy (HTO) are investigated. A total of 98 sufferers who underwent high tibial osteotomy in our hospital from January 2020 to May 2021 were selected as the study subjects. Two sets of sufferers are randomly divided into the study set and the routine set by the random number table method, with 49 cases in each set. The contrast set is given routine nursing intervention, and the ERAS concept combined with self-made raising leg pad nursing is given to the study set on the basis of the contrast set. Efficacy, joint pain, knee function, SF-36 fraction, quality of life fraction, and psychological status fraction are observed in 2 sets. Experimental results show that for sufferers after HTO surgery, the application of the ERAS concept combined with leg pad nursing therapy can effectively enhance postoperative knee function and adverse mood, reduce postoperative pain, and enhance postoperative quality of life.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36082065 PMCID: PMC9427318 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8440977
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two sets (n (%)).
| Set | Effective | Efficient | Invalid | Total efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study set ( | 25 | 22 | 2 | 47(95.92) |
| Contrast set ( | 16 | 14 | 19 | 30(61.22) |
|
| 17.526 | |||
|
| <0.001 |
Comparison of the joint pain before therapy and one month after therapy ().
| Set | Before therapy | After therapy |
|---|---|---|
| Study set ( | 6.92 ± 1.12 | 1.26 ± 0.45a |
| Contrast set ( | 6.97 ± 1.15 | 2.33 ± 0.56a |
|
| 0.471 | −11.633 |
|
| 0.709 | <0.001 |
Comparison of the knee function before and after therapy ().
| Set | Lysholm | |
|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | After therapy | |
| Study set ( | 55.62 ± 8.57 | 87.56 ± 11.57a |
| Contrast set ( | 56.12 ± 8.58 | 72.78 ± 9.82a |
|
| −0.8123 | 8.526 |
|
| 0.410 | <0.001 |
Figure 1Comparison of the knee function before and after therapy.
Comparison of the SF-36 fraction between the two sets before and after therapy (fraction, ).
| Set | SF-36 |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | After therapy | |||
| Contrast set ( | 50.21 ± 4.57 | 71.32 ± 5.48 | 18.943 | < 0.001 |
| Study set ( | 49.78 ± 5.14 | 83.12 ± 5.11 | −29.454 | < 0.001 |
|
| 0.402 | −10.149 | ||
|
| 0.688 | < 0.001 | ||
Figure 2Comparison of the SF-36 fraction between the two sets before and after therapy.
Comparison of the WHOQOL-BREF fraction between the two sets before and after therapy (fraction, ).
| Project | Before therapy |
|
| After therapy |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contrast set ( | Study set ( | Contrast set ( | Study set ( | |||||
| Psychological | 10.45 ± 3.43 | 10.38 ± 3.54 | 0.091 | 0.927 | 12.47 ± 2.12a | 16.56 ± 1.87a | −9.327 | <0.001 |
| Physiological | 15.36 ± 3.52 | 15.28 ± 3.48 | 0.104 | 0.917 | 16.15 ± 3.12a | 18.43 ± 3.73a | −3.017 | 0.003 |
| Social | 12.61 ± 4.76 | 12.57 ± 4.68 | 0.039 | 0.969 | 13.26 ± 3.45a | 15.77 ± 3.64a | −3.223 | 0.002 |
| Environment | 15.36 ± 4.32 | 15.26 ± 4.43 | 0.104 | 0.917 | 16.57 ± 2.34a | 18.69 ± 2.07a | −4.374 | <0.001 |
| Total fraction | 53.77 ± 10.36 | 54.38 ± 10.42 | −0.267 | 0.790 | 58.74 ± 11.67a | 71.23 ± 12.32a | −4.740 | <0.001 |
Comparison of psychological state fractions between the two sets (fraction, ).
| Set | HAMA | HAMD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | After therapy | Before therapy | After therapy | |
| Contrast set ( | 23.78 ± 2.44 | 17.32 ± 2.33a | 35.24 ± 1.89 | 26.32 ± 2.43a |
| Study set ( | 24.01 ± 2.53 | 9.07 ± 2.21a | 35.33 ± 2.01 | 18.45 ± 2.32a |
|
| −0.421 | 16.554 | −0.210 | 15.094 |
|
| 0.675 | <0.001 | 0.834 | <0.001 |
Figure 3Comparison of psychological state fractions between the two sets before and after therapy.