摘要
目的观察拉玛泽分娩减痛法对分娩的影响,以便探索非药物分娩减痛法,减轻产妇痛苦。方法将2006年10-12月有自然分娩意向的初产妇42例作为对照组,2007年1-6月经孕妇学校进行拉玛泽分娩减痛法训练的初产妇42例作为产前干预组。两组均行导乐陪伴分娩,对照组按常规指导孕妇深呼吸;产前干预组在孕7～9个月时进行拉玛泽分娩法学习,训练孕产妇在宫缩时的呼吸方法和在宫缩间歇期放松全身肌肉的方法,告知孕妇在第1产程潜伏期宫口开2～3 cm时应用胸式呼吸,进入活跃期加速期后(宫口开3～8 cm)应用浅而慢加速呼吸,在宫口开8～9 cm时应用浅呼吸,进入第2产程时指导闭气用力呼吸,当胎头娩出2/3时应用哈气呼吸或吹蜡烛呼吸。比较两组产妇阴道分娩产程时间、分娩疼痛及分娩方式情况。结果产前干预组第1产程、总产程较对照组明显缩短,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);产前干预组第1产程活跃期、第2产程分娩疼痛明显低于对照组(P<0.01、P<0.05);而两组分娩方式差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论拉玛泽分娩减痛法可减轻产妇压力,降低分娩疼痛,缩短产程,而对分娩方式影响不明显。
Objective To observe the effect of Lamaza Method on childbirth and explore to reduce childbirth pain by non-medicine methods. Methods 42 primiparas who were intended for natural delivery were selected as control group members from Oct. to Dec. 20061 while 42 primiparas who received Lamaza method of childbirth in school from Jan. to Jun. 2007 were selected as intervention group members. Pregnant women in both groups were applied Doula Accompany Delivery. In control group, pregnant women took deep breaths according to guidance, while those in intervention group were told the breathing methods and muscle relaxing methods. Duration of labor process, pain and ways of childbirth of two groups were compared. Results First labor process and total labor process were significant shorter in intervention group than those in control group, which showed statistical difference （P〈0.01）. The pain was significantly less during the active period of the first labor process and the second labor process in intervention group than that in control group （P〈0.01 or P〈0.05）. There was no difference in the outcomes of childbirth between two groups （P〉0.05）. Conclusion Lamaza Method of childbirth plays a positive role in reducing mental pressure of pregnant women, releasing the pain of childbirth and shortening the labor process. And it has no influence on outcomes of childbirth.
出处
《护理学报》
2007年第11期4-6,共3页
Journal of Nursing（China）
