Objectives: The aim of this study was to show an overview of situation of instrumental extraction at the maternity of Cocody University Hospital by determining availability and assessing the maternal and fetal prognos...Objectives: The aim of this study was to show an overview of situation of instrumental extraction at the maternity of Cocody University Hospital by determining availability and assessing the maternal and fetal prognosis. Patients and method: it was a retrospective study with a descriptive purpose on 6 months from January 1 to June 31, 2015. It concerned all patients admitted in the expulsive phase of labor delivery room and with an indication of fetal instrumental extraction and the state of their newborns at birth. Results: We saved 2288 vaginal deliveries;including 28 instrumental deliveries on 104 indications of instrumental extraction is an implementation rate of 26.9% (16 by vacuum extractor and 12 forceps). Among patients with indication but without instrumental extraction (n = 76), there is 42.3% vaginal delivery (n = 44) and 30.8% of cesarean section (n = 32). 44 have given birth vaginally (42.3%) and 32 by caesarean section (30.8%). It’s young patient (28 years), nulliparous (42.3%). Average time between instrumental extraction indication and the delivery of the baby was 58 min in the case of instrumental extraction and 1 hour 41 minutes in the case of spontaneous delivery in anticipation of the c-section. Motherhood had 3 instrumental extractors (2 vacuum extractors and 1 forceps) recycled after each use. The Apgar score was good in 85.7% in children born by instrumental extraction and bad in 54.5% in children born vaginally without instrumental extraction. We found 20 stillborn in intra partum occurred only in children born vaginally without instrumental extraction. Twelve (12) cases of bleeding of the issue by uterine atony (27.3%) were recorded in patients pregnant without instrumental extraction. No maternal deaths were observed. Conclusion: The realization of instrumental extraction rate remains low at the maternity of the UH-C. In the event, the fetal prognosis was better.展开更多
目的分析第二产程中使用一次性胎头真空吸引器的临床效果,以及人文关怀对其使用影响的研究。方法回顾性选取2019年10月至2020年8月需要阴道助产的产妇60例,依据助产方法分为一次性胎头真空吸引器组(真空吸引器)和产钳助产组,每组30例。...目的分析第二产程中使用一次性胎头真空吸引器的临床效果,以及人文关怀对其使用影响的研究。方法回顾性选取2019年10月至2020年8月需要阴道助产的产妇60例,依据助产方法分为一次性胎头真空吸引器组(真空吸引器)和产钳助产组,每组30例。分析2组产妇的助产操作时间、第二产程时间、总产程时间、术中、术后出血量、产妇损伤情况、新生儿Apgar评分、新生儿损伤情况、产妇中转剖宫产情况。结果真空吸引器组产妇的第二产程时间显著短于产钳助产组(P<0.05),术中、术后出血量均显著少于产钳助产组(P<0.05),但2组产妇的助产操作时间、总产程时间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。真空吸引器组产妇会阴侧切、会阴水肿、阴道壁损伤、尿潴留、产后出血发生率分别为10.00%(3/30)、3.33%(1/30)、10%(3/30)、0(0/30)、0(0/30),均显著低于产钳助产组的33.33%(10/30)、26.67%(8/30)、33.33%(10/30)、20.00%(6/30)、20.00%(6/30)(P<0.05)。真空吸引器组和产钳助产组新生儿出生后1 min、5 min、10 min Apgar评分差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。真空吸引器组新生儿面部损伤发生率为0(0/30)显著低于产钳助产组的13.3%(4/30)(P<0.05),头皮下血肿发生率23.33%(7/30)显著高于产钳助产组0(0/30)(P<0.05)。真空吸引器组产妇中转剖宫产率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论第二产程中使用一次性胎头真空吸引器的临床效果较产钳助产好,对于无分娩信心的产妇给予人文关怀可降低助产率。展开更多
文摘Objectives: The aim of this study was to show an overview of situation of instrumental extraction at the maternity of Cocody University Hospital by determining availability and assessing the maternal and fetal prognosis. Patients and method: it was a retrospective study with a descriptive purpose on 6 months from January 1 to June 31, 2015. It concerned all patients admitted in the expulsive phase of labor delivery room and with an indication of fetal instrumental extraction and the state of their newborns at birth. Results: We saved 2288 vaginal deliveries;including 28 instrumental deliveries on 104 indications of instrumental extraction is an implementation rate of 26.9% (16 by vacuum extractor and 12 forceps). Among patients with indication but without instrumental extraction (n = 76), there is 42.3% vaginal delivery (n = 44) and 30.8% of cesarean section (n = 32). 44 have given birth vaginally (42.3%) and 32 by caesarean section (30.8%). It’s young patient (28 years), nulliparous (42.3%). Average time between instrumental extraction indication and the delivery of the baby was 58 min in the case of instrumental extraction and 1 hour 41 minutes in the case of spontaneous delivery in anticipation of the c-section. Motherhood had 3 instrumental extractors (2 vacuum extractors and 1 forceps) recycled after each use. The Apgar score was good in 85.7% in children born by instrumental extraction and bad in 54.5% in children born vaginally without instrumental extraction. We found 20 stillborn in intra partum occurred only in children born vaginally without instrumental extraction. Twelve (12) cases of bleeding of the issue by uterine atony (27.3%) were recorded in patients pregnant without instrumental extraction. No maternal deaths were observed. Conclusion: The realization of instrumental extraction rate remains low at the maternity of the UH-C. In the event, the fetal prognosis was better.
文摘目的分析第二产程中使用一次性胎头真空吸引器的临床效果,以及人文关怀对其使用影响的研究。方法回顾性选取2019年10月至2020年8月需要阴道助产的产妇60例,依据助产方法分为一次性胎头真空吸引器组(真空吸引器)和产钳助产组,每组30例。分析2组产妇的助产操作时间、第二产程时间、总产程时间、术中、术后出血量、产妇损伤情况、新生儿Apgar评分、新生儿损伤情况、产妇中转剖宫产情况。结果真空吸引器组产妇的第二产程时间显著短于产钳助产组(P<0.05),术中、术后出血量均显著少于产钳助产组(P<0.05),但2组产妇的助产操作时间、总产程时间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。真空吸引器组产妇会阴侧切、会阴水肿、阴道壁损伤、尿潴留、产后出血发生率分别为10.00%(3/30)、3.33%(1/30)、10%(3/30)、0(0/30)、0(0/30),均显著低于产钳助产组的33.33%(10/30)、26.67%(8/30)、33.33%(10/30)、20.00%(6/30)、20.00%(6/30)(P<0.05)。真空吸引器组和产钳助产组新生儿出生后1 min、5 min、10 min Apgar评分差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。真空吸引器组新生儿面部损伤发生率为0(0/30)显著低于产钳助产组的13.3%(4/30)(P<0.05),头皮下血肿发生率23.33%(7/30)显著高于产钳助产组0(0/30)(P<0.05)。真空吸引器组产妇中转剖宫产率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论第二产程中使用一次性胎头真空吸引器的临床效果较产钳助产好,对于无分娩信心的产妇给予人文关怀可降低助产率。
