论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨剖宫产后瘢痕子宫再次妊娠分娩的方式及其临床效果。方法 142例剖宫产后瘢痕子宫再次妊娠分娩产妇,随机分为观察A组20例(经瘢痕子宫再次妊娠阴道分娩产妇)、观察B组122例(瘢痕子宫再次妊娠剖宫产分娩产妇),对照组142例(同期非瘢痕子宫阴道分娩产妇),对比观察A组与观察B组、观察A组与对照组的分娩结局。结果观察A组产妇产后24 h平均出血量[(301.55±9.85)ml]、平均住院天数[(6.41±1.10)d]、产褥率[5.00%(1/20)]以及新生儿窒息率[5.00%(1/20)]均显著低于观察B组,比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);对照组的平均产后出血量[(325.74±38.52)ml]、平均住院天数[(6.08±0.9)d]以及产褥率[2.82%(4/142)]和新生儿窒息率[2.82%(4/142)]等指标与观察A组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论在分娩过程中进行严密的监视并掌控好经阴道分娩指征的前提下,对剖宫产瘢痕子宫再次妊娠分娩的产妇选择经阴道分娩比其他分娩方式更为安全。
Objective To explore the ways and clinical effects of pregnancy and childbirth after cesarean section. Methods 142 cases of cesarean scar pregnancy after cesarean delivery were randomly divided into observation group A (n = 20), group B (n = 122), group B (cesarean scar pregnancy) Control group of 142 cases (same period non-scarring uterus vaginal delivery of mothers), compared the observation group A and observation group B, observation group A and control group delivery outcome. Results The average amount of bleeding at 24 hours postpartum in group A [(301.55 ± 9.85) ml], average length of hospital stay [(6.41 ± 1.10) d], puerperal rate [5.00% (1/20)] and neonatal asphyxia [ 5.00% (1/20)] were significantly lower than the observation group B, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05); the average postpartum hemorrhage volume in the control group [(325.74 ± 38.52) ml], the average length of stay [(6.08 ± 0.9) d] and the rate of puerperal [2.82% (4/142)] and neonatal asphyxia [2.82% (4/142)] were not significantly different from those of observation group A (P> 0.05) . Conclusions In the process of childbirth closely monitored and controlled vaginal delivery indications under the premise of the cesarean scar uterine pregnancy again childbirth choose vaginal delivery than other modes of delivery more secure.