中华全科医师杂志
中華全科醫師雜誌
중화전과의사잡지
Chinese Journal of General Practitioners
2015年
10期
770-773
,共4页
张望平%张引法%朱小玉%钟少平%蔡玉娟%祝胜美
張望平%張引法%硃小玉%鐘少平%蔡玉娟%祝勝美
장망평%장인법%주소옥%종소평%채옥연%축성미
引产%镇痛,产科
引產%鎮痛,產科
인산%진통,산과
Labor,induced%Analgesia,obstetrical
2013年9月至2015年2月对40例超预产期、单胎头位孕妇在硬膜外镇痛下使用Cook球囊引产(观察组),与40例未实施硬膜外镇痛Cook宫颈扩张球囊引产孕妇(对照组)比较.观察组第一产程潜伏期明显短于对照组[(198.7±65.7)与(242.9 ±78.9) min,P<0.05],剖宫产率和会阴裂伤率降低(分别为8%与45%,对照组分别为15%和5%),且分娩较为舒适,不影响引产成功率(均为98%);外周血白细胞计数引产前后观察组分别为(8.82±2.74)×109/L和(9.10±3.06)×109/L,CRP水平分别为(4.73±0.87)和(4.82 ±0.90)mg/L.说明硬膜外镇痛下Cook宫颈扩张球囊在足月引产中能明显缩短第一产程,减轻产妇痛苦,不增加感染机会和并发症,安全、有效.
2013年9月至2015年2月對40例超預產期、單胎頭位孕婦在硬膜外鎮痛下使用Cook毬囊引產(觀察組),與40例未實施硬膜外鎮痛Cook宮頸擴張毬囊引產孕婦(對照組)比較.觀察組第一產程潛伏期明顯短于對照組[(198.7±65.7)與(242.9 ±78.9) min,P<0.05],剖宮產率和會陰裂傷率降低(分彆為8%與45%,對照組分彆為15%和5%),且分娩較為舒適,不影響引產成功率(均為98%);外週血白細胞計數引產前後觀察組分彆為(8.82±2.74)×109/L和(9.10±3.06)×109/L,CRP水平分彆為(4.73±0.87)和(4.82 ±0.90)mg/L.說明硬膜外鎮痛下Cook宮頸擴張毬囊在足月引產中能明顯縮短第一產程,減輕產婦痛苦,不增加感染機會和併髮癥,安全、有效.
2013년9월지2015년2월대40례초예산기、단태두위잉부재경막외진통하사용Cook구낭인산(관찰조),여40례미실시경막외진통Cook궁경확장구낭인산잉부(대조조)비교.관찰조제일산정잠복기명현단우대조조[(198.7±65.7)여(242.9 ±78.9) min,P<0.05],부궁산솔화회음렬상솔강저(분별위8%여45%,대조조분별위15%화5%),차분면교위서괄,불영향인산성공솔(균위98%);외주혈백세포계수인산전후관찰조분별위(8.82±2.74)×109/L화(9.10±3.06)×109/L,CRP수평분별위(4.73±0.87)화(4.82 ±0.90)mg/L.설명경막외진통하Cook궁경확장구낭재족월인산중능명현축단제일산정,감경산부통고,불증가감염궤회화병발증,안전、유효.
To explore the feasibility and effects of Cook balloon cervical dilator on full-term nulliparous parturients under epidural analgesia.The observation group (n =40) received Cook balloon cervical dilation under epidural analgesia.However, the control group (n =40) had no epidural analgesia.Latent phase of labor was shorter in observation group than that in control group [(198.7 ± 65.7) vs.(242.9 ± 78.9) min, P <0.05].And the incidence of cesarean section and perineal laceration was lower under epidural analgesia(8% vs.15%, 45% vs.50% respectively).There were no effects on success rate of induced labor in neither group.Cook balloon could shorten latent phase of labor, relieve the pain of parturients and increase no infection rate [leukocyte count : (8.82 ± 2.74) × 109/L vs.(9.10 ± 3.06) × 109/L, C-reactive protein: (4.73 ±0.87) mg/L vs.(4.82 ±0.90) mg/L respectively].It is worth wider clinical popularization.