再次剖宫产采用两种剖宫产术式的效果对比  

Comparison of the Effects of Two Cesarean Section Methods for Cesarean Section Again

作　　者：郑云英[1] 张建果[1] ZHENG Yun-ying;ZHANG Jian-guo(Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,Xinglin Branch,the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University,Xiamen,Fujian Province,361022 China)

机构地区：[1]厦门大学附属第一医院杏林分院妇产科

出　　处：《中外医疗》2019年第36期33-35,共3页China & Foreign Medical Treatment

摘　　要：目的探讨再次剖宫产采用两种剖宫产术式的效果。方法方便选取2017年5月—2018年10月的108例再次剖宫产孕产妇作为研究对象,按照剖宫产术式的不同分为两组,对照组给予传统腹壁纵切式,观察组给予新式腹部横切式,且对两组孕产妇的术中出血量、开腹到胎儿娩出时间、手术时间、住院时间、肛门排气时间、并发症发生率、新生儿Apger评分及产后盆腔粘连发生率进行观察及评估。结果观察组与对照组的术中出血量(152.77±12.52)mL与手术时间(56.95±3.45)min相比差异无统计学意义(t=0.050、1.485,P=0.961、0.141>0.05);观察组开腹到胎儿娩出时间(12.95±1.05)min短于对照组(t=9.842,P=0.001<0.05)。观察组住院时间(5.25±0.45)d与对照组的住院时间相比差异无统计学意义(t=0.378,P=0.706>0.05);观察组的肛门排气时间(32.02±2.45)h短于对照组,差异有统计学意义(t=26.336,P=0.001<0.05)。观察组并发症发生率1.85%低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(χ^2=11.818,P=0.001<0.05);观察组与对照组的新生儿Apger评分(8.98±0.45)分相比差异无统计学意义(t=0.757,P=0.451>0.05);观察组产后盆腔粘连发生率11.11%低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(χ^2=9.929,P=0.002<0.05)。结论传统腹壁纵切式与新式腹部横切式相比,后者优势更大,并发症风险少及盆腔粘连发生率低,对于瘢痕子宫妊娠孕产妇而言可行性更强,而前者存在较高的盆腹腔粘连风险。Objective To investigate the effect of two cesarean sections on cesarean section.Methods 108 cases of cesarean section pregnant women from May 2017 to October 2018 were convenient selected as subjects.They were divided into two groups according to the cesarean section.The control group was given traditional abdominal wall longitudinal cut type.The observation group adopted new abdominal transection,and the intraoperative blood loss,laparotomy to fetal delivery time,operation time,hospital stay,anal exhaust time,complication rate,neonatal Apger score and postpartum pelvic adhesion occurrance rate for observation and evaluation in the two groups of pregnant women.Results There was no comparison between the intraoperative blood loss(152.77±12.52)mL and the operation time(56.95±3.45)min in the observation group and the control group,the difference was not statistically significant(t=0.050,1.485,P=0.961,0.141>0.05).The time from the opening of the observation group to the delivery of the fetus(12.95±1.05)min was shorter than that of the control group,the difference was statistically significant(t=9.842,P=0.001<0.05).There was no significant difference between the observation group(5.25±0.45)d and the hospital stay,the difference was not statistically significant(t=0.378,P=0.706>0.05);the anus exhaust time of the observation group(32.02±2.45)h was shorter than In the control group(t=26.336,P=0.001<0.05).The incidence of complications in the observation group was 1.85%lower than that in the control group,the difference was statistically significant(χ^2=11.818,P=0.001<0.05).There was no significant difference in the Apger score(8.98±0.45)points between the observation group and the control group(t=0.757,P=0.451>0.05);the incidence of postpartum pelvic adhesions in the observation group was 11.11%lower than that in the control group,the difference was statistically significant(χ^2=9.929,P=0.002<0.05).Conclusion Compared with the new abdominal cross-cutting type,the traditional abdominal wall longitudinal cutting t

关 键 词：再次剖宫产 剖宫产术式 传统腹壁纵切式 新式腹部横切式 

分 类 号：R5[医药卫生—内科学]