钳夹术前宫颈准备三种方法的比较  

Study on Three Methods of Cervix Preparations before the Forceps Clamping Operation.

作　　者：杨梅丽[1] 竺桂英[1] 罗勤[1] 徐立群[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江医科大学附属妇产科医院,杭州310006

出　　处：《中国计划生育学杂志》1997年第4期214-216,共3页Chinese Journal of Family Planning

摘　　要：钳夹术前软化和扩张宫颈的准备是手术成功的关键。我院用一次性宫颈扩张棒颈管放置加米索前列醇口服做术前宫颈准备74例(A 组),与单用米索前列醇口服74例(B 组)及单用一次性宫颈扩张棒术前颈管放置74例(C 组)进行手术效果比较观察。在宫口扩大、手术时间、子宫收缩、减轻受术者痛苦,以及人工流产综合征发生率等方面,A 组明显优于 B 组及 C 组,经统计学处理有显著差异。实验证明,钳夹术前用宫颈扩张棒缓慢扩张宫口配合口服前列腺素协同作用,可使手术更安全、有效。单用口服米索则可作为人流术前宫颈准备。Objective:To compare the therapeutic effect of three cervix preparation methods i.e.The cervix bar- like dilator plus oral misoprostop and only oral miso- prostol or only the cervix bar-like dilator.Methods:74 cases treated with the cervix bar-like dilator plus oral misoprostol were chosen as group A;and 74 cases treat- ed only with oral misoprostol as group B;74 cases treated only with the cervix bar-like dilator as group C.The cervix dilation operative time,uterine contrac- tion,patient suffering and the morbidity of induced abortion syndrome were recorded and the data were analysed statistically.Results:It was found that thera- peutic effects of the cervix dilatation,operation time and induced abortion syndrome in group A were much better than those in group B or C(P<0.001).The uterine contraction and patient suffering in group A were also better than those in group B or C(P<0.01)but no sig- nificant difference was found in the operative hemor- rhage among group A,B and C(P>0.05).Conclusion: The result revealed that a better and safer therapeutic effect can be achieved through the combined methods of the cervix bar-like dilator plus oral misoprostol,in comparition with only oral misoprostol or only cervix bar -like dilator.

关 键 词：钳夹术 宫颈扩张棒 人工流产 

分 类 号：R713.41[医药卫生—妇产科学]