| Literature DB >> 36158135 |
Tiantian Ren1, Jianli Wu1, Lu Qian1, Jing Liu1, Kan Ni1.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy and psychology of breast-conserving surgery and modified radical mastectomy in patients with early breast cancer (BC) under graded nursing.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36158135 PMCID: PMC9507650 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4491573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Baseline datasheet.
| Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 64.07 ± 4.95 | 62.77 ± 9.27 | 0.811 | 0.420 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.11 ± 3.03 | 25.32 ± 3.33 | 1.181 | 0.241 |
| Living environment | 0.862 | 0.353 | ||
| In the city | 26 (63.41) | 28 (53.85) | ||
| In the countryside | 15 (36.59) | 24 (46.15) | ||
| Type of cancer | 0.797 | 0.372 | ||
| Ductal cancer | 41 (100.0) | 51 (98.08) | ||
| Lobular cancer | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.92) | ||
| Drinking | 0.001 | 0.982 | ||
| Yes | 4 (9.76) | 5 (9.62) | ||
| No | 37 (90.24) | 47 (90.38) | ||
| Family history of illness | 0.145 | 0.703 | ||
| Have | 1 (2.44) | 2 (3.85) | ||
| None | 40 (97.56) | 50 (96.15) | ||
| Pathological stage | 0.091 | 0.764 | ||
| Stage I | 21 (51.22) | 25 (48.08) | ||
| Stage II | 20 (48.78) | 27 (51.92) |
Figure 1Comparison of surgical indicators between groups. (a) Comparison of operative time between groups. (b) Comparison of intraoperative bleeding between groups. (c) Comparison of postoperative drainage between groups. (d) Comparison of length of stay between groups. ∗∗∗P < 0.005.
Postoperative adverse reactions.
| Incision infection | Nausea and vomiting | Upper limb swelling | Flap necrosis | Subcutaneous effusion | Total incidence (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A ( | 1 (2.44) | 1 (2.44) | 1 (2.44) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.44) | 9.76 |
| Group B ( | 1 (1.92) | 2 (3.85) | 2 (3.85) | 1 (1.92) | 1 (1.92) | 13.46% |
|
| 0.302 | |||||
|
| 0.583 |
Figure 2Comparison of psychology before and after treatment. (a) Comparison of HAMD scores of both groups before and after treatment. (b) Comparison of HAMA scores of both groups before and after treatment. ∗∗∗P < 0.005.
Figure 3Comparison of quality of life before and after treatment. (a) Comparison of somatic function scores of both groups before and after treatment. (b) Comparison of psychology scores of both groups before and after treatment. (c) Comparison of functioning domain scores of both groups before and after treatment. (d) Comparison of faith factor scores of both groups before and after treatment. ∗∗∗P < 0.005.
Treatment satisfaction survey.
| Very satisfied | Satisfied | Dissatisfied | Total satisfaction (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A ( | 24 (58.54) | 14 (34.15) | 3 (7.32) | 92.68 |
| Group B ( | 19 (36.54) | 19 (36.54) | 14 (26.92) | 73.08 |
|
| 5.899 | |||
|
| 0.015 |