期刊文献+

会阴无保护性接生对低危经阴道分娩指征患者分娩结局的影响 被引量:1

Effect of Unprotected Perineal Delivery on Outcome of Delivery in Low-Risk Vaginal Delivery
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:探讨低危经阴道分娩指征患者中采用会阴无保护性接生技术对分娩并发症及分娩结局的影响。方法:选取2016年8月至2017年5月达州市中西医结合医院待产有条件经阴道分娩低危孕妇112例随机分为干预组(会阴无保护性接生技术,56例)和常规组(常规分娩,56例),比较两组分娩并发症及妊娠结局。结果:干预组会阴侧切、会阴重度裂伤发生率分别是3.57%、1.79%,均低于常规组的67.86%、16.07%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。干预组患者产后出血、新生儿窒息及转剖宫产发生率分别是1.79%、0.00%、3.57%,均低于常规组的14.29%、8.93%、16.07%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:低危经阴道分娩指征患者中采用会阴无保护接生技术可有效降低患者分娩并发症及不良妊娠结局发生率。 Objective To investigate the effects of perineum unprotected delivery techniques on complications of childbirth and the outcome of delivery in low-risk vaginal delivery indications. Method Select 114 case of low-risk pregnant women in our hospital to be conditional vaginal delivery during Aug. 2016 to May. 2017, randomly divide them to intervention group(56 cases due to unprotected delivery technique) and conventional group(conventional delivery, 56 cases), compare the two groups of patients in childbirth complications and pregnancy outcome. Conclusion The incidence of severe perineal laceration was higher in the intervention group than in the conventional group(3.57 %vs.67.86 %, 1.79 %vs.16.07 %, P 0.05). The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, neonatal asphyxia and cesarean section in the intervention group were lower than those in the conventional group(1.79 %vs.14.29 %,0.00 %vs.8.93 %,3.57 %vs.16.07 %,P 0.05). Result Low-risk vaginal delivery indications in patients with unprotected delivery technology can effectively reduce the incidence of complications and adverse pregnancy outcome.
作者 代燕
出处 《深圳中西医结合杂志》 2017年第23期102-103,共2页 Shenzhen Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine
关键词 低危经阴道分娩 会阴无保护技术 分娩 Low risk of vaginal delivery Perineum without protection technology Childbirth
作者简介 代燕,女,护师,主要研究方向是助产。
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

二级参考文献103

  • 1董金林,倪美菊,朱钟治.会阴Ⅲ度撕裂50例分析[J].实用妇产科杂志,1996,12(3):153-154. 被引量:17
  • 2谢幸,苟文丽.妇产科学[M].8版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2013:118-119.
  • 3Murphy D J, Macleod M, Bahl R, et al. A randomised controlled tri- al of routine versus restrictive use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery:a muhicentre pilot study [ J ]. B JOG, 2008,115 ( 13 ): 1695-1703.
  • 4Harrison RF, Brennan M, North PM, et al. Is routine episiotomy necessary [ J ]. BMJ, 1984,288 (6435) : 1971-1975.
  • 5Sleep J, Grant A, Garcia J, et al. West berkshire perineal manage- ment trial[ J]. BMJ, 1984,289(6445 ) :587-590.
  • 6Woolley R.I. Benefits and risks of episiotomy:a review of the eng- lish-language literature since 1980. Part I [ J]. Obstet Gynecol Surv,1995,50( 11 ) :806-820.
  • 7Sartore A, De Seta F, Maso G ,et al. The effect of mediolateral epi- siotomy on pelvic floor function after vaginal delivery [ J ]. Obstet Gynecal, 2004,103 ( 4 ) : 669 -673.
  • 8Clemons JL, Towers GD, McClure GB, et al. Decreased anal sphincter laceration associated with restrictive episiotomy use[ J ]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2005,192 ( 5 ) : 1620 -1625.
  • 9Aasheim V, Nilsen A B, Lukasse M, et al. Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma[ J ]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev,2011,7(12) :66-72.
  • 10谢辛,苟文丽.妇产科学[M].8版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2013:213.

共引文献289

同被引文献170

引证文献1

二级引证文献28

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部