Effectiveness of a New Leg Sleeve for Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This experimental research study aimed to compare the results of an original leg sleeve with a new leg sleeve regarding the duration of putting on the leg sleeve, the space from the edge of the leg sleeve to the groin fold of each leg, the surgical site infection rate, and the gynecologists’ and nurses’ satisfactions. The sample consisted of two groups: 1) 36 gynecological patients, who underwent laparoscopic surgery were selected for the study. A block randomization was used to assign 18 patients to an experimental group and the other 18 to a control group. The control group used the original leg sleeve, while those in the experiment group used the new leg sleeve. 2) 16 gynecologists and nurses. The collection data form consisted of 7 parts: demographic data, type of leg sleeve, information regarding concerns related to wearing the leg sleeve, leg length, time taken to put on the leg sleeve, monitoring data for infection at the surgical site and the users’ satisfactions while wearing the leg sleeve. The content validity of the satisfaction questionnaire was 0.84. Comparisons of the demographic data between the 2 groups were obtained using student’s t-test, chi square and fisher exact test. To compare the different types of leg sleeve, information on wearing the leg sleeve, leg length, time taken to put on the leg sleeve, and monitoring data for infection at the surgical site was done via the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, whilst the difference in users’ satisfactions was assessed by the student’s t-test.
The results showed that differences in the time taken to put on the leg sleeve, the distance from the edge of the leg sleeve to the groin fold as well as user satisfaction were statistically significant between the experimental and control groups (p <.001). The new leg sleeve (used in the experimental group) required less time to put on, the length also covered the groin and overall, the users’ satisfaction was higher than that of the control group (p <.001). There were no differences in surgical site infection between the two groups.
Article Details
บทความและรายงานวิจัยในวารสารพยาบาลกระทรวงสาธารณสุข เป็นความคิดเห็นของ ผู้เขียน มิใช่ของคณะผู้จัดทำ และมิใช่ความรับผิดชอบของสมาคมศิษย์เก่าพยาบาลกระทรวงสาธารณสุข ซึ่งสามารถนำไปอ้างอิงได้
References
2. Permpech R, Butsripoom B. Peripheral nerve injuries caused by surgical positioning for gynecologic laparoscopy. The Thai Perioperative Nurses Association J 2015;8:1. (in Thai)
3. Sutasanasuang S. Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: A retrospective comparative study. Med Assoc Thai J 2011;94:1.
4. Songklanagarind Hospital.Operating Theater. Patient record operation in 2011-2015. Songkhla: Songklanagarind Hospital; 2015.
5. Bennicoff G. Perioperative care of the morbidly obese patient in the lithotomyposition. AORN J 2010;92:297-309.
6. Moore KL, Agur A MR, Dalley AF. Essential clinical anatomy. 5th ed. Philadephia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015.
7. Bauer EC, Koch N, Erichsen CJ, Juettner T, Rein D, Janni W, et al. Survey of compartment syndrome of the lower extremity after gynecological operations. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2014;399:343-8.
8. Boesgaard-kjer DH, Boesqaard-kjer D, kjer JJ. Well-leg compartment syndrome after gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:598-600.
9. Bauer EC, Koch N, Janni W, Bender HG, Fleisch MC. Compartment syndrome after gynecologic operation: evidence from case reports and reviews. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprod Biol. 2014;173:7-12.
10. Piyasoontrawong N, Kehachindawat P, Boonsaeng K, Bhumisirikul P. A new contamination-reducing procedure for minimizing the surgical site infection rate in the operating room. Rama Nurse J 2009; 16:111. (in Thai)
11. Wamack JP, Jones DP. Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York: Free Press;2003.
12. Edwards Deming W. The New economic for industry government and education. Boston: MIT Press;2000.
13. Kasatpibal N. Epidemiology and prevention of surgical site infection. Chiang Mai: Chotanaprint; 2014; p26-27. (in Thai)
14. Pengsawat W. Research and development. Sakon Nakhon Rajabhat University J 2009;1:2. (in Thai)
15. Richy RC, Klein JD, Tracey MW. The instructional design knowledge base. New York: Routledge; 2011.
16. Pengsawat W. The experimental research in education. Sakon Nakhon Rajabhat University J 2014;6:11. (in Thai)
17. Shao J, Chow SC, Wang H. Sample size calculations in clinical research. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRCC; 2008.
18. Mydee D. The use of a disposable paper caliper to determine the area of intravitreal injection at SongklanagarindHospital.Kuakarun J Nurs 2014;20:35. (in Thai)
19. Piyasoontrawong N, Bunluelap S. User satisfaction on multi-purpose linin bag for laparoscopic surgery. Thai J Nurse Council 2011;26:5-12. (in Thai)
20. Rattanapan C, Peerapattana P. The improvement of the service system for reducing queuing time by using lean thinking and simulation model: the case study of dental clinic, Khonkaen Province. MBA-KKU J 2016;1:135-150. (in Thai)
21. Apisitiwongt Y, Chantarokorn A, Kowitwanawong N. Effectiveness of lean process to reduce waiting time for emergency surgery during office hours: a case study in Songklanagarind Hospital. Thai journal of Anesthesiology 2012;36:2-130 (in Thai)
22. Payngulume K. Prevention and infection control for operating room. In: Tengkiattrakul S. Butsripoom B, editors. Perioperative nursing. Bangkok: Offset Plus; 2015; p.91.(in Thai)
23. Artsalee R. Perioperative nursing. Bangkok: NP Press; 2010. (in Thai)
24. Janyam K. Industrial and organization psychology. Bangkok: Odeonstore Publisher; 2013.(in Thai)