Objective To explore the difference of sleep quality and the influencing factors in ketamine dependent subjects and methamphetamine dependent subjects.Methods 60 ketamine dependent subjects and 60 methamphetamine dependent subjects with Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI),self-rating depression scale (SDS),self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) were tested.Results Methamphetamine dependent subjects was significantly more likely to elicit poor sleep quality than ketamine dependent subjects (P =0.022).The sleep quality of ketamine dependent subjects had a positive correlation with anxiety(P =0.015),depression(P =0.038),the onset age (P =0.029),and the dose of ketamine use in the last three months (P =0.048),while the sleep quality of methamphetamine dependent subjects had a positive correlation with the total time of ketamine use (P =0.038),anxiety (P =0.041),the dose of ketamine use in the last three months (P =0.011).Conclusion Methamphetamine dependent subjects are prone to a more serious poor sleep quality than ketamine dependent subjects.

Objective:To investigate the application value of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in perioperative period of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).Method:The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinical data of 1 181 patients undergoing LSG in the Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Affiliated with the Zhejiang University School of Medicine from January 2021 to December 2023 were collected. There were 242 males and 939 females, aged (31±8)years. Of 1 181 patients, 598 cases receiving routine perioperative care were divided into the control group, and 583 cases receiving perioperative care with ERAS were divided into the ERAS group. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, and the independent sample t test was used for comparison between the groups. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M( Q1, Q3), and the Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used for comparison between the groups. Count data were expressed as absolute numbers or percentages, and the chi-square test or Fisher exact probability were used for comparison between the groups. Repeated measurement data were analyzed using the repeated ANOVA, with baseline scores as covariates. Simple effects analysis was conducted in case of interaction, and multiple comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method. Results:(1) Postoperative outcomes. The numerical rating scale (NRS) scores for pain at immediate return to the ward and on the third postoperative mornings changed from 5.35±0.93 to 2.57±0.83 in the control group, versus changed from 3.15±0.93 to 0.70±0.65 in the ERAS group, showing significant difference between the two groups ( Ftime=66.58, Fgroup=1 765.85, Finteraction=6.90, P<0.05). After adjusting NRS scores for pain at immediate return to the ward as the baseline, results of simple effects analysis showed that on the third postoperative mornings, the NRS scores in the ERAS group were lower by 1.89, 1.53, and 1.76 respectively compared to the control group ( P<0.05). Cases with nausea at immediate return to the ward and on the third postoperative mornings changed from 497 to 97 in the control group, versus changed from 198 to 11 in the ERAS group, showing signifi-cant difference between the two groups ( χ2=294.45, 398.76,209.39, 73.00, P<0.05). Cases with vomiting at immediate return to the ward and on the third postoperative mornings changed from 243 to 41 in the control group, versus changed from 51 to 2 in the ERAS group, showing significant difference between the two groups ( χ2=160.54, 149.37, 71.76, 35.69, P<0.05). The duration of postoperative hospital stay was (3.22±0.65)days in the control group, versus (2.17±0.49)days in the ERAS group, showing a significant difference between the two groups ( t=-11.89, P<0.05). (2) Complications. The incidence of cases with dehydration within postoperative 30 days was 0.50%(3/598) in the control group, versus 0.69%(4/583) in the ERAS group, showing no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05). None of patient in the control group and the ERAS group experienced bleeding, gastric leakage, intra-abdominal infection, and no patient had unplanned secondary surgery within postoperative 30 days. Conclusions:ERAS in perioperative period of LSG are safe and feasible. Compared to routine care, ERAS can significantly reduce postoperative pain, decrease the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, shorten the postoperative hospital stay, and do not increase the rate of postoperative complications or unplanned secondary surgeries within postoperative 30 days.