de Souza Caroci da Costa Adriana, Gonzalez Riesco Maria Luiza
Adventist University Center of Sao Paulo.
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2006 Mar-Apr;51(2):106-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.10.017.
Our goal was to determine the frequency, degree, and location of perineal lacerations and the neonatal outcomes associated with the use of two techniques of perineal protection--expectant ("hands off") and interventionist ("hands on")--during childbirth. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of two techniques for perineum protection during spontaneous delivery. Study participants included 70 nulliparous expectant mothers, who were divided equally between the "hands off" and "hands on" groups (n = 35 per group). Perineal laceration occurred in 81.4% of the women. Among these, first-degree lacerations were predominant (82.5%). Lacerations in the anterior and posterior regions of the perineum occurred with similar frequencies. Laceration rates did not differ between the "hands off" and "hands on" groups (P > .05). Neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. The use of "hands off" technique of perineal protection does not alter the frequency or degree of perineal lacerations in childbirth, relative to a "hands on" technique.
我们的目标是确定分娩时会阴裂伤的频率、程度和位置,以及与两种会阴保护技术(即期待性的“不干预”和干预性的“干预”)相关的新生儿结局。我们进行了一项随机对照试验,以比较两种技术在自然分娩时保护会阴的有效性。研究参与者包括70名未生育的孕妇,她们被平均分为“不干预”组和“干预”组(每组n = 35)。81.4%的女性发生了会阴裂伤。其中,一度裂伤最为常见(82.5%)。会阴前后区域的裂伤发生率相似。“不干预”组和“干预”组的裂伤率没有差异(P > 0.05)。两组的新生儿结局相似。相对于“干预”技术,采用“不干预”技术进行会阴保护并不会改变分娩时会阴裂伤的频率或程度。