摘要
目的探讨剖宫产术后再次妊娠的合理分娩方式。方法回顾性分析我院2014年1月至2015年12月收治的212例产妇的临床资料,根据不同分娩方式,分为A组(46例,行剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道分娩)、B组(60例,行剖宫产术后再次剖宫产术),C组(46例,行非疤痕子宫阴道分娩)及D组(60例,行非疤痕子宫剖宫产术)。比较所有产妇的分娩方式、分娩结局、母婴并发症等情况。结果 A组和C组产妇的产程时间、产后24 h出血量、新生儿窒息、住院时间等指标比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);A组产妇的产时出血量、住院时间均明显优于B组(P<0.05);B组产妇的术中出血量明显高于D组,手术时间和住院时间明显长于D组(P<0.05);各组新生儿窒息情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论合理选择阴道试产,可降低再次剖宫产率,安全性较高,值得临床推广应用。
Objective To investigate the appropriate delivery mode of repeat pregnancy after cesarean. Methods A retrospective analysis on the clinical data of 212 cases of puerperant in our hospital from January 2014 to December 2015 were carried out. According to the different delivery mode, they were divided into group A （46 cases, received vaginal delivery after cesarean section）, group B （60 cases, received cesarean section again after cesarean section）, group C （46 cases, received non scar uterus vaginal delivery） and group D （60 cases, received non scar uterus cesarean section）. The delivery mode, delivery outcomes and infant complications of those groups were compared. Results The difference of production process time, 24 h postpartum hemorrhage, asphyxia neonatorum and hospital saty between group A and group C were not statistically significant （P〉0.05）; The amount of bleeding during the accouchement and hospital stay of group A were significantly superior to those of group B （P〈0.05）; the amount of bleeding during the surgery in group B was slightly higher than that of group D, the operation time and hospital stay in group B was slightly longer than group D （P〈O.05）; in the comparison of neonate asphyxia, there was no significant difference in those four groups （P〉0.05）. Conclusion A reasonable choice of vaginal trial can reduce the rate of second cesarean section, it is safe and worthy of clinical application.
出处
《临床医学研究与实践》
2016年第22期120-121,共2页
Clinical Research and Practice
关键词
剖宫产术
再次妊娠
经阴道分娩
cesarean section
subsequent pregnancy
delivery mode
