不同剖宫产术式对于再次剖宫产结局影响的Meta分析  

Meta-Analysis of the Influence of Different Cesarean Section Methods on the Outcome of Cesarean Section Again

作　　者：刘陈敏 刘峰峰 林洁 

机构地区：[1]珠海市妇幼保健院麻醉手术科,广东 珠海

出　　处：《护理学》2024年第10期1477-1484,共8页Nursing Science

摘　　要：目的:比较不同剖宫产术式对于再次剖宫产孕产妇及新生儿临床结局的影响。方法:系统检索知网、万方、维普、Sinomed等数据库,时间截止至2023年9月1日随机对照试验研究。主要结局指标:腹腔粘连(无)、盆腔粘连(无)、瘢痕(轻微);次要结局指标:产后大出血、切口感染、新生儿窒息。使用Review Manager (v.5.4)软件进行Meta分析。结果:腹腔粘连(无)经分析后(RR = 0.56, 95%CI [0.49, 0.65], P P = 0.46)显示,两组间差异无统计学意义。瘢痕(轻微)经分析后(RR = 0.43, 95%CI [0.27, 0.68], P P = 0.02)显示,两组间差异有统计学意义。切口感染经分析后(RR = 0.37, 95%CI [0.20, 0.68], P Objective: To compare the effects of different cesarean section methods on the clinical outcomes of pregnant women and newborns undergoing cesarean section again. Methods: The databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, VIP and Sinomed were searched systematically up to September 1, 2023 for randomized controlled trial studies. Main outcome measures are: abdominal adhesion (none), pelvic adhesion (none) and scar (slight);secondary outcome measures are: postpartum hemorrhage, incision infection and neonatal asphyxia. Review Manager (v.5.4) software is used for Meta-analysis. Results: After analysis of abdominal adhesions (none) (RR = 0.56, 95%CI [0.49, 0.65], P P = 0.46), there was no significant difference between the two groups. After analysis of scar (slight) (RR = 0.43, 95%CI [0.27, 0.68], P P = 0.02), the difference between the two groups was statistically significant. After analysis of incision infection (RR = 0.37, 95%CI [0.20, 0.68], P < 0.01), the difference between the two groups was statistically significant. There was no significant difference between pelvic adhesion (none) and neonatal asphyxia after analysis. Conclusion: For pregnant women undergoing cesarean section again, longitudinal abdominal wall cutting can reduce the incidence of abdominal adhesion and scar, while trans

关 键 词：剖宫产 横切式 纵切式 META分析 

分 类 号：R71[医药卫生—妇产科学]