COOK双球囊在有剖宫产史中孕引产中的应用  

COOK the Double Balloon in the Application of the Cesarean Section History of Mid Pregnancy Induced Labor

作　　者：刘彩兰[1] 杨赛花[1] 

机构地区：[1]广州军区武汉总医院妇产科,湖北武汉430070

出　　处：《中国医药指南》2014年第31期9-10,共2页Guide of China Medicine

摘　　要：目的比较剖宫产术后两种引产方法的有效性、安全性。方法分析比较有剖宫产史中孕引产2种方法"双球囊+利凡诺羊膜腔注射引产术(观察组,30例)、米非司酮+利凡诺羊膜腔注射引产术(对照组,28例)"在引产时间(用药到分娩时间)、阴道出血量、胎盘胎膜残留率及软产道损伤等方面的差异。结果对照组和观察组患者的胎盘、胎膜残留率分别为35.7%、37.0%,两组患者差异不显著,无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对照组和观察纽患者的阴道出血量分别为(195±80)mL、(178±57)mL,软产道裂伤率分别为14.2%、0,两组患者差异显著具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论有剖宫产史中期妊娠利凡诺羊膜腔注射引产及在此基础上联合COOK双球囊方法安全、有效、可行。Objective To compare the effectiveness, safety after cesarean section of two kinds of methods of induced labor. Methods Analyze and compare with the history of cesarean section in pregnancy induced labor 2 methods“double balloon＋rivanol amniotic cavity injection induced labor surgery （observation group, 30 cases）, mifepristone＋rivanol amniotic cavity injection induced labor operation （control group, 28 cases）”in the induction time （medication to delivery time）, vaginal hemorrhage, placenta caul residual difference rate and soft birth canal injury etc. Results In the control of placental, caul group and observation group patients with residual rates were 35.7%, 37.0%, two groups of patients did not show significant difference, no statistical significance （P＆gt;0.05）. The observation group and the control group of patients with vaginal bleeding were （195＋80）mL, （178＋57）mL, soft birth canal laceration rate were 14.2%, 0, two groups were significant difference was statistically significant （〈0.05）. Conclusion Mid term history of cesarean section pregnancy rivanol amniotic cavity injection induced labor and on this basis, combined with COOK and double balloon method is safe, effective, feasible.

关 键 词：COOK双球囊 有剖宫产史 中孕引产 利凡诺 米非司酮 

分 类 号：R719.8[医药卫生—妇产科学]