CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较无保护会阴接生法和传统接生法对会阴裂伤程度的临床效果和安全性。方法选取在该院妇产科进行分娩的产妇136例，随机分为观察组和对照组各68例，观察组采取无保护会阴接生法，对照组行传统的托肛接生法。以产妇会阴裂伤程度、产程疼痛、产后2h出血量、第2产程时间、新生儿窒息以及产妇满意率等作为临床指标，对两种方法进行评价，并进行统计学分析。结果观察组产妇会阴完整和Ⅰ度裂伤比率为17.6%和48.5%，高于对照组，而Ⅱ度裂伤和Ⅲ度裂伤比率为33.8%和0，均低于对照组，组间差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；两组在产程疼痛方面的差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；观察组的产妇满意率为97.1%，高于对照组，组间差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论无保护会阴接生法是一种操作简便、会阴部位保护效果良好，安全性较好，可显著减少初产妇会阴侧切率，减轻产妇伤痛，受到产妇的欢迎，值得在临床上加以推广应用。
목적：비교무보호회음접생법화전통접생법대회음렬상정도적림상효과화안전성。방법선취재해원부산과진행분면적산부136례，수궤분위관찰조화대조조각68례，관찰조채취무보호회음접생법，대조조행전통적탁항접생법。이산부회음렬상정도、산정동통、산후2h출혈량、제2산정시간、신생인질식이급산부만의솔등작위림상지표，대량충방법진행평개，병진행통계학분석。결과관찰조산부회음완정화Ⅰ도렬상비솔위17.6%화48.5%，고우대조조，이Ⅱ도렬상화Ⅲ도렬상비솔위33.8%화0，균저우대조조，조간차이유통계학의의（P<0.05）；량조재산정동통방면적차이유통계학의의（P<0.05）；관찰조적산부만의솔위97.1%，고우대조조，조간차이유통계학의의（P<0.05）。결론무보호회음접생법시일충조작간편、회음부위보호효과량호，안전성교호，가현저감소초산부회음측절솔，감경산부상통，수도산부적환영，치득재림상상가이추엄응용。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy on the degree of perineal laceration and safety between unprotected per-ineal delivery method and traditional delivery method. Methods 136 cases of puerperants underwent delivery in Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of our hospital from January, 2010 to December, 2013 were randomly divided into the observation group and the control group with 68 cases in each. The observation group was treated with unprotected perineal delivery method and the control group was treated with traditional care anal delivery method. The degree of maternal perineal laceration, labor pain, postpartum hemorrhage 2h after the delivery, the duration of second stage of labor, neonatal asphyxia, and maternal satisfac-tion rate were selected as the clinical indicators for evaluating both methods and statistical analysis was carried out. Results The maternal perineal integrity andⅠ degree laceration rate was 17.6% and 48.5% in the observation group, which was higher than that in the control group, respectively, while the Ⅱdegree and Ⅲ degree laceration rate was 33.8% and 0, which was lower than that in the control group, respectively, there were significant differences between the groups (P<0.05);The difference between the two groups in terms of labor pain was statistically significant (P<0.05); maternal satisfaction in the observation group was 97.1%, which was higher than that in the control group, the difference was significant between the groups (P<0.05). Conclusion Unpro-tected perineal delivery method is easy to operate, it has good effect on protecting the perineal regions with good safety, and can significantly reduce the rate of primipara episiotomy and maternal pain, so it is welcomed by the puerperants and worthy to be popularized in clinical practice.