• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

对因脐带脱垂导致的“紧急”剖宫产在反应时间和围产期结局方面的审计。

Audit of 'crash' emergency caesarean sections due to cord prolapse in terms of response time and perinatal outcome.

作者信息

Tan W C, Tan L K, Tan H K, Tan A S

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore 169608.

出版信息

Ann Acad Med Singap. 2003 Sep;32(5):638-41.

PMID:14626792
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to audit 'crash' emergency caesarean sections (CS) with respect to response time (the diagnosis to delivery interval [DDI]) and perinatal outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The computerised database at the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) delivery suite was used to identify all cases of 'crash' emergency CS activated for the diagnosis of cord prolapse from 1992 to 2002. Patients' case notes and neonatal charts were reviewed and the following variables were evaluated: parity, gestational age at the time of delivery and the DDI. Neonatal outcome was measured by Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes, cord pH and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

RESULTS

A total of 34 cases of umbilical cord prolapse were identified from 29,867 deliveries, giving an incidence of 0.11% (1 in 900). The median gestational age was 38.5 weeks (range, 25 to 41 weeks). The median time from diagnosis to delivery was 20 minutes (range, 10 to 40 minutes). Seventy-six percent (19/30) were delivered within 30 minutes. The time of diagnosis was not recorded for 5 cases. Sixty-three percent of neonates had an Apgar score < or = 7 at 1 minute of life, increasing to 97% at 5 minutes. There were 3 NICU admissions for reasons of prematurity. There was no perinatal mortality. Cord pH was not performed for 47% of (14/30) neonates. Among the remaining 16 neonates, an umbilical cord pH of < or = 7.20 was found in 62% (10/16). There was poor correlation between the DDI and umbilical cord pH.

CONCLUSION

Three-quarters of our 'crash' emergency CS for cord prolapse were performed within 30 minutes with a good perinatal outcome. However, we have identified areas for improvement to optimise further the operational efficiency of 'crash' emergency CS.

摘要

目的

旨在审核“紧急”剖宫产手术,评估其反应时间(诊断至分娩间隔时间[DDI])及围产期结局。

材料与方法

利用新加坡总医院(SGH)产房的计算机化数据库,识别1992年至2002年间因诊断脐带脱垂而启动的所有“紧急”剖宫产病例。查阅患者病历和新生儿图表,并评估以下变量:产次、分娩时的孕周及DDI。通过1分钟和5分钟时的阿氏评分、脐带血pH值及新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)收治情况来衡量新生儿结局。

结果

在29867例分娩中,共识别出34例脐带脱垂病例,发生率为0.11%(900例中有1例)。中位孕周为38.5周(范围为25至41周)。从诊断到分娩的中位时间为20分钟(范围为10至40分钟)。76%(19/30)的产妇在30分钟内分娩。有5例未记录诊断时间。63%的新生儿出生1分钟时阿氏评分≤7分,5分钟时增至97%。因早产有3例新生儿入住NICU。无围产期死亡。47%(14/30)的新生儿未进行脐带血pH值检测。在其余16例新生儿中,62%(10/16)的脐带血pH值≤7.20。DDI与脐带血pH值之间相关性较差。

结论

我们实施的四分之三的因脐带脱垂而进行的“紧急”剖宫产手术在30分钟内完成,围产期结局良好。然而,我们已确定有待改进的方面,以进一步优化“紧急”剖宫产手术的操作效率。

相似文献

1
Audit of 'crash' emergency caesarean sections due to cord prolapse in terms of response time and perinatal outcome.对因脐带脱垂导致的“紧急”剖宫产在反应时间和围产期结局方面的审计。
Ann Acad Med Singap. 2003 Sep;32(5):638-41.
2
Umbilical cord prolapse--a review of diagnosis to delivery interval on perinatal and maternal outcome.脐带脱垂——围产期及产妇结局中诊断至分娩间隔的综述
J Pak Med Assoc. 2007 Oct;57(10):487-91.
3
Umbilical cord prolapse. Is the time from diagnosis to delivery critical?脐带脱垂。从诊断到分娩的时间至关重要吗?
J Reprod Med. 1998 Feb;43(2):129-32.
4
Emergency obstetrics care in a Nigerian tertiary hospital: a 20 year review of umblical cord prolapse.尼日利亚一家三级医院的急诊产科护理:脐带脱垂20年回顾
Niger J Clin Pract. 2009 Sep;12(3):232-6.
5
Determinants of the decision-to-delivery interval and the effect on perinatal outcome after emergency caesarean delivery: a cross-sectional study.紧急剖宫产术的决策至分娩间隔时间的决定因素及其对围产结局的影响:一项横断面研究。
Malawi Med J. 2021 Mar;33(1):28-36. doi: 10.4314/mmj.v33i1.5.
6
Term pregnancy with umbilical cord prolapse.足月妊娠合并脐带脱垂。
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;51(3):375-80. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2012.07.010.
7
The decision-to-delivery interval in emergency Caesarean sections and its correlation with perinatal outcome: evidence from 204 deliveries in a developing country.急诊剖宫产的决定至分娩间隔及其与围产期结局的相关性:来自一个发展中国家204例分娩的证据。
Trop Doct. 2012 Apr;42(2):67-9. doi: 10.1258/td.2012.110315.
8
Results of delivery in umbilical cord prolapse.脐带脱垂的分娩结果。
Saudi Med J. 2003 Jul;24(7):754-7.
9
Maternal and neonatal morbidity of emergency caesarean sections with a decision-to-delivery interval under 30 minutes: evidence from 10 years.决定分娩间隔在30分钟以内的急诊剖宫产的孕产妇和新生儿发病率:十年证据
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003 Aug;268(3):136-41. doi: 10.1007/s00404-003-0527-4. Epub 2003 Jul 15.
10
Decision-to-Delivery Time Intervals in Emergency Caesarean Section Cases: Repeated cross-sectional study from Oman.急诊剖宫产病例的决定至分娩时间间隔:来自阿曼的重复横断面研究。
Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2017 Feb;17(1):e38-e42. doi: 10.18295/squmj.2016.17.01.008. Epub 2017 Mar 30.

引用本文的文献

1
Decision-to-delivery interval and neonatal outcomes in intrapartum umbilical cord prolapse.产时脐带脱垂的决策-分娩间隔与新生儿结局。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Jun 22;23(1):463. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05788-y.
2
Umbilical Cord Prolapse-Interesting CTG Traces.脐带脱垂——有趣的胎心监护图迹
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Nov 17;12(11):2845. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112845.
3
Impact of simulation training on decision to delivery interval in cord prolapse.模拟训练对脐带脱垂中决定分娩间隔时间的影响。
BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2021 Jun 16;7(6):543-547. doi: 10.1136/bmjstel-2021-000860. eCollection 2021.
4
The incidence, risk factors and determinants of perinatal outcome of umbilical cord prolapses in Lagos, Nigeria.尼日利亚拉各斯脐带脱垂围产期结局的发生率、危险因素及决定因素
Niger Med J. 2017 Mar-Apr;58(2):53-57. doi: 10.4103/0300-1652.219344.
5
Evaluation of decision-to-delivery interval in emergency cesarean section: A 1-year prospective audit in a tertiary care hospital.急诊剖宫产术中决定分娩间隔时间的评估:在一家三级护理医院进行的为期1年的前瞻性审计。
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jan-Mar;33(1):64-70. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.202197.