| Literature DB >> 36185576 |
Yanling Zhou1, Lan Liu2, Lifei Gao3.
Abstract
In order to explore the clinical effect and immune function of patients with localized prostate cancer combined with continuous nursing intervention and Fuzheng Guben decoction, a total of 72 patients with prostate cancer admitted to our hospital from January 2020 to June 2021 are selected and analyzed. The patients are randomly divided into a study group and control group randomly, and the control group and the research group are treated with routine intervention and chemotherapy, continuous nursing intervention, and Fuzheng Guben decoction on the basis of chemotherapy, respectively. The incidence of postoperative urinary incontinence and other complications between the two groups are counted, and the differences of FHIT, CatD, CatL, CD68, and CD83 levels in the patients are compared. Furthermore, the total treatment response rate and self-attitude score of the two groups are compared after treatment. The experimental results demonstrate that the total effective rate and self-attitude score of patients in the study group are significantly better than those in the control group.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36185576 PMCID: PMC9507668 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3472722
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Comparison of urinary incontinence between the two groups [ ± s, points].
| Group | Example number ( | The degree of impact on life | The degree of impact on life | Missing urine volume | Total points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The research group | 36 | 2.57 ± 0.88 | 1.83 ± 0.92 | 2.01 ± 0.56 | 6.35 ± 1.53 |
| Control group | 36 | 3.72 ± 1.23 | 2.91 ± 1.21 | 2.51 ± 0.77 | 9.31 ± 2.11 |
|
| −4.562 | −4.263 | −3.151 | 4.195 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
Figure 1Urinary incontinence condition.
Comparison of the occurrence of complications in the two groups [n (%)].
| Group | Example number ( | Infect | Abdominal distension |
| Total incidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The research group | 36 | 1 (2.77) | 1 (2.77) | 2 (5.55) | 4 (11.11) |
| Control group | 36 | 3 (8.33) | 2 (5.55) | 4 (11.11) | 9 (25.00) |
|
| 4.251 | ||||
|
| 0.030 |
Expression of total tumor suppressor genes and invasion genes in the two groups ( ± s).
| Group | Example number ( | FHIT | CatL | CatD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The research group | 36 | 1.61 ± 0.24 | 0.61 ± 0.17 | 0.71 ± 0.11 |
| Control group | 36 | 1.11 ± 0.22 | 0.91 ± 0.24 | 0.94 ± 0.20 |
|
| 14.573 | 9.495 | 10.913 | |
|
| 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Figure 2Expression of total tumor suppressor genes and invasion genes.
Comparison of peripheral blood CD68 and CD83 expression in the two groups (%, ± s).
| Group study group ( | CD68 | CD83 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretherapy | Post-treatment | Pretherapy | Post-treatment | |
| Control group ( | 2.91 ± 0.87 | 10.23 ± 3.01 | 1.74 ± 0.53 | 5.09 ± 1.54 |
| Group | 2.86 ± 0.91 | 3.13 ± 1.21 | 1.82 ± 0.56 | 2.32 ± 0.91 |
|
| 0.613 | 22.813 | 0.924 | 16.987 |
|
| 0.531 | 0.001 | 0.317 | 0.001 |
Note. Compared with this group before treatment, p < 0.05.
Figure 3CD68 and CD83 expression in peripheral blood before treatment.
Figure 4CD68 and CD83 expression in peripheral blood after treatment.
Comparison of patient efficacy between the two patient groups [n (%)].
| Group | Example number( | Clinical recovery | Excellence | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The research group | 36 | 8 (22.22) | 10 (27.78) | 12 (33.33) | 6 (16.67) | 30 (83.33) |
| Control group | 36 | 6 (16.67) | 7 (19.44) | 11 (30.56) | 12 (33.33) | 24 (66.67) |
|
| 3.951 | |||||
|
| 0.020 |
Comparison of self-efficacy scores between the two groups ( ± s).
| Group | Self-decision making | Positive attitude | Self-decompression | Total efficiency score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| On admission | 3 months after discharge | On admission | 3 months after discharge | On admission | 3 months after discharge | On admission | 3 months after discharge | |
| Control group ( | 7.32 ± 2.02 | 13.31 ± 0.77 | 31.21 ± 2.49 | 39.57 ± 3.12 | 20.11 ± 0.67 | 31.77 ± 2.01 | 67.32 ± 6.01 | 84.62 ± 5.13 |
| Study group ( | 7.19 ± 1.12 | 17.68 ± 0.59 | 30.78 ± 1.88 | 45.76 ± 2.13 | 20.11 ± 0.59 | 36.97 ± 1.99 | 68.44 ± 5.51 | 89.99 ± 3.80 |
|
| 0.338 | -27.029 | -0.827 | 9.831 | 0.000 | 11.031 | -0.824 | 5.047 |
|
| 0.737 | <0.001 | 0.411 | <0.001 | 1.000 | <0.001 | 0.413 | <0.001 |
Note. Compared with the current group on admission, p < 0.05.
Figure 5Comparison of the self-efficacy scores at hospital admission.
Figure 6Comparison of self-efficacy scores at 3 months from discharge.