• 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

手术分娩器械偏好对产科和新生儿结局的影响。

Effect of instrument preference for operative deliveries on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.

作者信息

Abenhaim Haim A, Morin Lucie, Benjamin Alice, Kinch Robert A

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

出版信息

Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007 Oct;134(2):164-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.002. Epub 2006 Nov 16.

DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.002
PMID:17112650
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relationship between physicians' instrument preference and obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study comparing obstetrical and neonatal outcomes of second stage deliveries between obstetricians who prefer forceps (forceps >/=90%) with obstetricians with no preference to forceps (either instrument <90%) was completed using the McGill Obstetrical and Neonatal Database. Logistic regression analysis was used to obtain an adjusted odds ratio controlling for maternal, intrapartum and neonatal confounders.

RESULTS

Two thousand and three hundred thirteen infants were delivered by 5 obstetricians who preferred forceps, and 9261 infants were delivered by 15 obstetricians with no instrument preference. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. As compared to obstetricians who preferred forceps, obstetricians with no instrument preference had a higher rate of operative vaginal deliveries 1.5 (1.1-2.0), a higher cesarean section rate 2.5 (1.3-4.9) and a higher episiotomy rate in non-operative vaginal deliveries 3.4 (2.7-4.3). Infants delivered by obstetricians with no instrument preference were less likely to have significant bruising 0.3 (0.2-0.6) but more likely to have a cephalohematoma 3.0 (1.1-8.3).

CONCLUSION

Physician instrument preference is an important determinant of outcomes that should be considered in studies evaluating instrumental deliveries.

摘要

目的

探讨医生器械偏好与产科及新生儿结局之间的关系。

研究设计

使用麦吉尔产科和新生儿数据库完成一项回顾性队列研究,比较偏好产钳(产钳使用率≥90%)的产科医生与无器械偏好(两种器械使用率均<90%)的产科医生进行第二产程分娩的产科及新生儿结局。采用逻辑回归分析来获得调整后的优势比,以控制产妇、产时及新生儿混杂因素。

结果

5名偏好产钳的产科医生接生了2313名婴儿,15名无器械偏好的产科医生接生了9261名婴儿。两组的基线特征相似。与偏好产钳的产科医生相比,无器械偏好的产科医生手术阴道分娩率更高(1.5[1.1 - 2.0]),剖宫产率更高(2.5[1.3 - 4.9]),非手术阴道分娩时会阴切开率更高(3.4[2.7 - 4.3])。无器械偏好的产科医生接生的婴儿出现明显瘀伤的可能性较小(0.3[0.2 - 0.6]),但发生头颅血肿的可能性较大(3.0[1.1 - 8.3])。

结论

医生的器械偏好是结局的一个重要决定因素,在评估器械助产的研究中应予以考虑。

相似文献

1
Effect of instrument preference for operative deliveries on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.手术分娩器械偏好对产科和新生儿结局的影响。
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007 Oct;134(2):164-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.002. Epub 2006 Nov 16.
2
Immediate maternal and neonatal effects of forceps and vacuum-assisted deliveries.产钳和真空辅助分娩对产妇和新生儿的即时影响。
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;103(3):513-8. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000114985.22844.6d.
3
Practice variations between family physicians and obstetricians in the management of low-risk pregnancies.家庭医生与产科医生在低风险妊娠管理方面的实践差异。
J Fam Pract. 1995 Apr;40(4):345-51.
4
Instrumental delivery: clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians.器械助产:法国妇产科学院临床实践指南。
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 Nov;159(1):43-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.06.043. Epub 2011 Jul 28.
5
Comparison of maternal and infant outcomes between vacuum extraction and forceps deliveries.真空吸引分娩与产钳分娩的母婴结局比较。
Saudi Med J. 2002 Jul;23(7):811-3.
6
The effect of sequential use of vacuum and forceps for assisted vaginal delivery on neonatal and maternal outcomes.序贯使用真空吸引器和产钳进行阴道助产对新生儿及产妇结局的影响。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Oct;185(4):896-902. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.117309.
7
Forceps or vacuum extraction: a comparison of maternal and neonatal morbidity.产钳或真空吸引术:母婴发病率比较
East Mediterr Health J. 2001 Jan-Mar;7(1-2):106-14.
8
Forceps compared with vacuum: rates of neonatal and maternal morbidity.产钳与真空吸引器对比:新生儿及产妇发病率
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;106(5 Pt 1):908-12. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000182616.39503.b2.
9
Outcome of forceps delivery versus vacuum extraction--a review of 200 cases.产钳助产与真空吸引术的结局——200例病例回顾
Singapore Med J. 1994 Dec;35(6):605-8.
10
Fear of failure: are we doing too many trials of instrumental delivery in theatre?对失败的恐惧:我们在产房进行的器械助产操作是否过多?
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(11):1234-8. doi: 10.1080/00016340802443848.

引用本文的文献

1
Birth injuries in late preterm and term neonates after instrumental delivery: a prospective study on short-term and developmental outcomes.器械助产分娩后晚期早产儿和足月儿的出生损伤:一项关于短期和发育结局的前瞻性研究
Front Pediatr. 2025 Apr 4;13:1569513. doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1569513. eCollection 2025.
2
Single prior caesarean section and risk of anal sphincter injury.既往单次剖宫产与肛门括约肌损伤风险
Int Urogynecol J. 2019 Jun;30(6):959-964. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3797-x. Epub 2018 Oct 30.
3
Forceps, Actual Use, and Potential Cesarean Section Prevention: Study in a Selected Mexican Population.
产钳、实际使用情况及剖宫产预防的潜在作用:对特定墨西哥人群的研究
J Pregnancy. 2015;2015:489267. doi: 10.1155/2015/489267. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
4
Factors influencing the likelihood of instrumental delivery success.影响器械分娩成功率的因素。
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Apr;123(4):796-803. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000188.