Effect of rapid rehabilitation nursing on improvement of quality of life after super-miniPCNL and risk analysis for postoperative complications

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effect of rapid rehabilitation nursing on the improvement of quality of life after super-miniPCNL (SMP) and the risk analysis of postoperative complications.

Methods: The clinical data of 124 SMP patients who were admitted from February 2019 to February 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. Thereinto, 58 cases received routine nursing were regarded as the control group (CG), and 66 received rapid rehabilitation nursing were considered as the observation group (OG). The negative emotions, pain relief, incidence of complications and quality of life were compared. In view of the occurrence of complications, patients were divided into complication group and non-complication group, and the risk factors were assessed by logistics regression.

Results: The time of fluid infusion, exhaust, defecation and hospitalization in the OG were shorter than those in the CG, and the difference was statistically remarkable (P<0.05). In the OG, the SF-36 and score of postoperative quality of life were obviously higher (P<0.05), while the postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and self-rating depression scale (SDS) were markedly lower. Logistics regression analysis manifested that the operation time, course of disease, stone residue, history of preoperative infection and nursing plan were independently correlated with complications.

Conclusion: Rapid rehabilitation nursing for SMP patients is beneficial to accelerating postoperative recovery, reducing the occurrence of complications and improving quality of life.

Keywords: Rapid rehabilitation nursing; kidney stone; quality of life; risk analysis; super-miniPCNL.

Figure 1

Comparison of postoperative clinical indexes. A. The time of postoperative fluid infusion in the observation group was remarkably lower than that in the control group. B. The postoperative exhaust time in the observation group was remarkably lower than that in the control group. C. The postoperative hospital stay in the observation group was remarkably lower than that in the control group. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001.

Figure 2

Comparison of quality of life, negative emotions and pain management in patients after operation. A. Changes of patients’ quality of life before and after nursing. B. There was no significant difference in VAS score between both groups before operation, but the score decreased after operation. The postoperative VAS in the observation group was obviously lower than that in the control group. C. There was no significant difference in SAS score between both groups before operation, but the score decreased after operation. The postoperative SAS in the observation group was obviously lower than that in the control group. D. There was no significant difference in SDS score between both groups before operation, but the score decreased after operation. The postoperative SDS in the observation group was obviously lower than that in the control group. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001.