腹壁横切口与纵切口对二次剖宫产术效果比较  

Abdominal Transverse Incision with Longitudinal Incision Cesarean Comparison of the Secondary

作　　者：陆桂秋 

机构地区：[1]江苏省苏州市吴中区长桥人民医院,江苏苏州225128

出　　处：《中国医学创新》2013年第28期49-51,共3页Medical Innovation of China

摘　　要：目的:探讨分析对瘢痕子宫行再次剖宫产时腹壁横切口与纵切口的利弊。方法:选择2010年6月-2013年6月本院收治的需要二次剖宫产的孕妇110例,所有孕妇及家属均知情并同意,把第一次剖宫产横切口的55例孕妇作为对照组,第一次剖宫产纵切口的55例孕妇作为治疗组。两组均按照原腹壁旧切口手术。观察两组盆腹腔粘连、胎儿娩出的时间、总手术时间、术中出血量及新生儿窒息情况。结果:治疗组胎儿娩出时间、总手术时间比对照组短,两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);术中出血量及胎儿窒息方面治疗组比对照组少,但两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗组总粘连率为23.63%(13/55),对照组为54.50%(30/55),两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:对于有再次剖宫产手术可能的产妇切口应首选腹壁纵切口,以利于再次手术操作,同时减少手术创伤,对二次剖宫产的产妇具有重要的临床意义。Objective： To investigate the analysis again cesarean uterine scar line abdominal transverse incision with vertical incision in the pros. Method： The first transverse incision cesarean section 55 cases of pregnant women as a control group, the first vertical incision cesarean section 55 cases of pregnant women as a treatment group. Both groups were used according to the original abdominal incision. Result： The treatment group fetus time; total operative time were shorter than the control group, two groups difference was statistically significant （ P〈0.05 ） . Intraoperative blood loss and fetal distress in the treatment group were less than the control group, but between the two groups had no statistical significance （ P〉0.05 ） Adhesion treatment group was 23.63% in the control group was 54.50% in group, the difference was statistically significant （ P〈0.05 ） . Conclusion ： For a repeat cesarean section surgery may be preferred maternal abdorrdnal incision should be vertical incision to facilitate the re-operation operations, while reducing surgical trauma, the secondary cesarean section has important clinical significance.

关 键 词：瘢痕子宫 腹壁横切口 纵切口 剖宫产 

分 类 号：R719.8[医药卫生—妇产科学]