Suppr超能文献

选择性重复剖宫产与试产:1989年至1999年文献的荟萃分析。

Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999.

作者信息

Mozurkewich E L, Hutton E K

机构信息

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

出版信息

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Nov;183(5):1187-97. doi: 10.1067/mob.2000.108890.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare a trial of labor with elective repeat cesarean delivery among women with previous cesarean delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1989 through 1999 with the following terms: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, trial of labor, trial of scar, and uterine rupture. We included all controlled trials from developed countries in which the control group had been eligible for a trial of labor. Outcomes of interest were uterine rupture, hysterectomy, maternal febrile morbidity, maternal mortality, 5-minute Apgar score <7, and fetal or neonatal mortality. We computed pooled odds ratios for each outcome.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 52 controlled studies, 37 of which were excluded because many of the control subjects were not eligible for a trial of labor. Fifteen studies with a total of 47,682 women were included. Uterine rupture occurred more frequently among women undergoing a trial of labor than among those undergoing elective repeat cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-3.05). There was no difference in maternal mortality risk between the 2 groups (odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-6.38). Fetal or neonatal death (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.28) and 5-minute Apgar scores <7 (odds ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.88) were more frequent in the trial of labor group than in the control group. Mothers undergoing a trial of labor were less likely to have febrile morbidity (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.77) or to require transfusion (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.76) or hysterectomy (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.57).

CONCLUSION

A trial of labor may result in small increases in the uterine rupture rate and in fetal and neonatal mortality rates with respect to elective repeat cesarean delivery. Maternal morbidity, including febrile morbidity, and the need for transfusion or hysterectomy may be reduced with a trial of labor.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较有剖宫产史的女性进行阴道试产与选择性再次剖宫产的情况。

研究设计

我们使用以下检索词在1989年至1999年期间检索了MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库:剖宫产术后阴道分娩、阴道试产、瘢痕试产和子宫破裂。我们纳入了所有来自发达国家的对照试验,其中对照组符合阴道试产条件。感兴趣的结局包括子宫破裂、子宫切除术、产妇发热性疾病、产妇死亡、5分钟Apgar评分<7以及胎儿或新生儿死亡。我们计算了每个结局的合并比值比。

结果

检索策略共识别出52项对照研究,其中37项被排除,因为许多对照受试者不符合阴道试产条件。纳入了15项研究,共计47682名女性。阴道试产的女性子宫破裂发生率高于选择性再次剖宫产的女性(比值比,2.10;95%置信区间,1.45 - 3.05)。两组产妇死亡风险无差异(比值比,1.52;95%置信区间,0.36 - 6.38)。阴道试产组胎儿或新生儿死亡(比值比,1.71;95%置信区间,1.28 - 2.28)和5分钟Apgar评分<7(比值比,2.24;95%置信区间,1.29 - 3.88)的发生率高于对照组。进行阴道试产的母亲发生发热性疾病(比值比,0.70;95%置信区间,0.64 - 0.77)、需要输血(比值比,0.57;95%置信区间,0.42 - 0.76)或子宫切除术(比值比,0.39;95%置信区间,0.27 - 0.57)的可能性较小。

结论

与选择性再次剖宫产相比,阴道试产可能会使子宫破裂率以及胎儿和新生儿死亡率略有增加。阴道试产可能会降低包括发热性疾病在内的产妇发病率以及输血或子宫切除术的需求。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验