Liabsuetrakul T, Choobun T, Peeyananjarassri K, Islam M
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand, 90110.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(3):CD004455. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub2.
Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics are prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum and/or forceps deliveries.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (November 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2003) and MEDLINE (1966 to November 2003).
All randomised trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age undergoing vacuum or forceps delivery for any indications. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium) compared with either placebo or no treatment.
Four reviewers assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality. Two reviewers extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all reviewers. We assessed methodological quality of the included trial using the standard Cochrane criteria and the CONSORT statement of randomised controlled trials. We calculated the relative risks using a fixed effect model and all the reviewers interpreted and discussed the results.
One trial, involving 393 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, was included. This trial identified only two out of the nine outcomes specified in this review. It reported seven women with endomyometritis in the group given no antibiotic and none in prophylactic antibiotic group. This difference did not reach statistical significance, but the relative risk reduction was 93% (relative risks 0.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 1.21). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (weighted mean difference 0.09 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41).
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The data were too few and of insufficient quality to make any recommendations for practice. Future research on antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery is needed to conclude whether it is useful for reducing postpartum morbidity.
据报道,与自然阴道分娩相比,真空吸引和产钳助产阴道分娩会增加产后感染和产妇再次入院的发生率。通常会预防性使用抗生素来预防这些感染。然而,手术阴道分娩预防性使用抗生素的益处仍不明确。
评估预防性使用抗生素在降低接受手术阴道分娩(包括真空吸引和/或产钳助产)的妇女产褥期感染性疾病发生率方面的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2003年11月)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(《Cochrane图书馆》,2003年第4期)以及MEDLINE(1966年至2003年11月)。
所有比较任何预防性抗生素方案与安慰剂或不治疗,用于接受真空吸引或产钳助产的妇女的随机试验均符合要求。参与者为所有无感染证据或任何孕周抗生素使用其他指征的孕妇,因任何指征接受真空吸引或产钳助产。干预措施为任何预防性抗生素(任何剂量方案、任何给药途径或在分娩或产褥期的任何时间)与安慰剂或不治疗进行比较。
四位评价者评估试验的入选资格和方法学质量。两位评价者使用准备好的数据提取表格独立提取数据。任何差异通过讨论解决,并通过与所有评价者讨论达成共识。我们使用Cochrane标准和随机对照试验的CONSORT声明评估纳入试验的方法学质量。我们使用固定效应模型计算相对风险,所有评价者对结果进行解释和讨论。
纳入一项试验,涉及393名接受真空吸引或产钳助产的妇女。该试验仅确定了本综述中指定的九个结局中的两个。报告显示,未使用抗生素组有7名妇女发生子宫内膜炎,预防性使用抗生素组无病例。这种差异未达到统计学显著性,但相对风险降低了93%(相对风险0.07;95%置信区间(CI)0.00至1.21)。两组住院时间无差异(加权平均差0.09天;95%CI -0.23至0.41)。
数据过少且质量不足,无法给出任何实践建议。需要对手术阴道分娩预防性使用抗生素进行进一步研究,以确定其是否有助于降低产后发病率。