切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华移植杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (02) : 127 -130. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3903.2019.02.010

所属专题: 文献

论著

肝移植受者生存质量现状及影响因素分析
张利姗1, 叶海丹1,(), 廖昌贵1   
  1. 1. 510080 广州,中山大学附属第一医院器官移植科
  • 收稿日期:2019-08-10 出版日期:2019-05-25
  • 通信作者: 叶海丹

Analysis of quality of life and influencing factors in liver transplantation recipients

Lishan Zhang1, Haidan Ye1,(), Changgui Liao1   

  1. 1. Organ Transplant Center, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China
  • Received:2019-08-10 Published:2019-05-25
  • Corresponding author: Haidan Ye
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Ye Haidan, Email:
引用本文:

张利姗, 叶海丹, 廖昌贵. 肝移植受者生存质量现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(02): 127-130.

Lishan Zhang, Haidan Ye, Changgui Liao. Analysis of quality of life and influencing factors in liver transplantation recipients[J]. Chinese Journal of Transplantation(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(02): 127-130.

目的

调查肝移植受者生存质量现状,并探讨其影响因素。

方法

选取2017年12月在中山大学附属第一医院器官移植科复查的115例肝移植受者,使用一般资料问卷和简明健康调查(SF-36)量表进行调查。采用独立样本t检验比较肝移植组与常模对照组SF-36量表各维度得分,采用单因素方差分析比较不同学历等人口社会学及临床相关资料对生存质量的影响,组间两两比较采用LSD法。计数资料采用频数和构成比表示。P<0.05为差异有统计学差异。

结果

共发放问卷115份,回收有效问卷108份,有效回收率93.9%。108例肝移植受者生存质量总分平均为(592±138)分,其中PCS得分平均为(286±71)分,MCS得分平均为(306±75)分;生理机能维度得分最高[(86±14)分],生理职能维度得分最低[(55±42)分]。肝移植受者生理机能、生理职能、躯体疼痛、社会功能和情感职能5个维度得分均低于常模,差异均有统计学意义(t=3.78、6.05、5.54、1.61和0.36,P均<0.01)。以SF-36量表中PCS和MCS作为因变量,分析肝移植受者人口社会学及临床相关资料对生存质量的影响。结果显示,性别、文化程度、月收入、术后生存时间以及术后有无再就业是肝移植受者生存质量的影响因素(P均<0.05)。

结论

肝移植受者生存质量还有待提高。医护人员应多关注女性、文化程度较低、月收入较低、术后生存时间<1年、术后未再就业的肝移植受者,提高其生存质量。

Objective

To investigate the quality of life (QOL) of liver transplant recipients and explore its influencing factors.

Methods

115 liver transplant recipients who got reexamination in the Department of Organ Transplantation, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University in December 2017 were included into the study, and the general data questionnaire and brief health survey (SF-36) scale were used. The independent sample t-test was used to compare the scores of each dimension of SF-36 scale between the liver transplantation group and the normal control group, and the one-way ANOVA and LSD method was used to compare the effect of demographic sociological and clinical data on the QOL. The counting data were expressed by frequency and constituent ratio. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 115 questionnaires were sent out and 108 valid questionnaires were collected, with an effective recovery rate of 93.9%. The average total scores of QOL of 108 liver transplant recipients was (592±138) scores. the average scores of physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) were (286±71) scores and (306±75) scores, respectively. The scores of physical function dimension was the highest [(86±14) scores], and the scores of physical role function dimension was the lowest [(55±42) scores]. The scores of physiological function, physical role function, physical pain, social function and emotional function of liver transplant recipients were significantly lower than those of the normal control group (t=3.78, 6.05, 5.54, 1.61 and 0.36, P all<0.01). The effect of demographic sociological and clinical data on QOL of liver transplant recipients were analyzed (the PCS and MCS of SF- 36 scale were used as dependent variables). The results showed that gender, educational level, monthly income, postoperative survival time and postoperative reemployment were the influencing factors of QOL after liver transplantation (P all<0.05).

Conclusion

The QOL of liver transplant recipients still needs to be improved. Medical staff should pay more attention to female, low educational level, low monthly income, short lived (less than 1 year) and no re-employment liver transplant recipients, so as to improve their QOL.

表1 肝移植受者人口社会学及临床相关资料(n=108)
表2 肝移植受者SF-36量表各维度得分与常模的比较结果(±s,分)
表3 肝移植受者生存质量影响因素(±s,分)
1
Starzl TE. The long reach of liver transplantation[J]. Nat Med, 2012, 18(10): 1489-1492.
2
郑树森,俞军,张武. 肝移植在中国的发展现状[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志,2014, 30(1):2-4.
3
Bownik H, Saab S. Health-related quality of life after liver transplantation for adult recipients[J]. Liver Transpl, 2009, 15(S2): S42-S49.
4
陈规划,汪根树. 肝移植受者生存质量:现状、问题与对策[J]. 器官移植,2013, 4(1):1-5.
5
李宁秀,刘朝杰,李俊,等. 四川省城乡居民SF-36评价参考值[J]. 四川大学学报(医学版), 2001, 32(1):43-47.
6
吴玲,王小丹,刘玉梅,等. SF-36量表用于老年人群信度及效度研究[J]. 中国老年学杂志,2008, 28(11):1114-1115.
7
郑良成,田辉荣,谢培增. 医学生存质量评估[M]. 北京:军事医学科学出版社,2005.
8
席淑华,陈律,孟虹,等. 肝移植患者生存质量的调查与分析[J]. 解放军护理杂志,2005, 22(3):4-6.
9
Tolver MA, Strandfelt P, Rosenberg J, et al. Female gender is a risk factor for pain, discomfort, and fatigue after laparoscopic groin hernia repair[J]. Hernia, 2013, 17(3): 321-327.
10
宋兰娥,陈昭燃. 袖带加压疼痛的性别差异及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国疼痛医学杂志,2015, 21(5):366-370.
11
赵鑫,李维娜,桂婧,等. 野战部队官兵生存质量现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中华现代护理杂志,2016, 22(20):2836-2840.
12
Wang GS, Yang Y, Li H, et al. Health-related quality of life after liver transplantation: the experience from a single Chinese center[J]. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2012, 11(3): 262-266.
13
Tome S, Wells JT, Said A, et al. Quality of life after liver transplantation. A systematic review[J]. J Hepatol, 2008, 48(4): 567-577.
14
郑树森. 肝移植[M]. 2版. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2012:641.
15
刘允怡. 肝移植在肝癌治疗中的地位与评价[J]. 中华肝胆外科杂志,2003, 9(5):265-267.
[1] 刘嘉嘉, 王承华, 陈绪娇, 刘瑗玲, 王善钰, 屈海花, 张莉. 经阴道子宫-输卵管实时三维超声造影中患者疼痛发生情况及其影响因素分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(09): 959-965.
[2] 高玲, 于哲, 范然, 臧银善. 外周血细胞计数比值评估类风湿关节炎疗效的价值[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 642-647.
[3] 王蓓蓓, 董启秀, 郗红燕, 于庆云, 张丽君, 式光. 早孕期孕妇药物流产失败的影响因素分析与构建相关预测模型及其对药物流产成功的预测价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 588-594.
[4] 陈絮, 詹玉茹, 王纯华. 孕妇ABO血型联合甲状腺功能检测对预测妊娠期糖尿病的临床价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 604-610.
[5] 王鹏, 肖厚安, 贾赤宇. 不同因素调控巨噬细胞极化在慢性难愈性创面中的研究进展[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(05): 454-459.
[6] 李坤河, 寇萌佳, 邝立挺. 肝移植术后二次气管插管的危险因素及预测模型的建立[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 366-371.
[7] 杨倩, 李翠芳, 张婉秋. 原发性肝癌自发性破裂出血急诊TACE术后的近远期预后及影响因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 33-36.
[8] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[9] 黄汇, 朱信强. 131I治疗45岁以下分化型甲状腺癌的疗效及影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 627-630.
[10] 严庆, 刘颖, 邓斐文, 陈焕伟. 微血管侵犯对肝癌肝移植患者生存预后的影响[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 624-629.
[11] 廖梅, 张红君, 金洁玚, 吕艳, 任杰. 床旁超声造影对肝移植术后早期肝动脉血栓的诊断价值[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 630-634.
[12] 李秉林, 吕少诚, 潘飞, 姜涛, 樊华, 寇建涛, 贺强, 郎韧. 供肝灌注液病原菌与肝移植术后早期感染的相关性分析[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 656-660.
[13] 吕垒, 冯啸, 何凯明, 曾凯宁, 杨卿, 吕海金, 易慧敏, 易述红, 杨扬, 傅斌生. 改良金氏评分在儿童肝豆状核变性急性肝衰竭肝移植手术时机评估中价值并文献复习[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 661-668.
[14] 顾娇娇, 邹燕, 陈奕辰, 黄师菊, 张慧玲, 林楠. 基于简易营养评价精法评估肝癌患者出院后营养状况及其影响因素[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(05): 534-539.
[15] 杜振双, 胡清福, 林颖艺, 张月霞, 陈美丽, 李祎祺, 王振华. 社区全科医师激励机制的影响因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 876-883.
阅读次数
全文


摘要