Suppr超能文献

硅橡胶杯真空吸引器或产钳:一项对比研究。

Silastic cup vacuum extractor or forceps: a comparative study.

作者信息

Svigos J M, Cave D G, Vigneswaran R, Resch A, Christiansen J

机构信息

Queen Victoria Hospital, Division of Adelaide Medical Centre for Women and Children, Rose Park, South Australia.

出版信息

Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990 Dec;16(4):323-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.1990.tb00356.x.

Abstract

A retrospective analysis over a 2-year period was carried out to compare the limitations in the use of the Silastic Cup vacuum extractor and forceps as the preferred instrument for operative vaginal delivery. Whilst the use of the vacuum extractor was associated with less maternal morbidity (54.9% episiotomy rate; 20.9% nil analgesia) and comparable neonatal problems, an increased failure rate (6.5%) was demonstrated in comparison to forceps delivery (0.7% failed vaginal delivery rate). A comparison of their use for rotational vaginal delivery failed to reveal any significant difference in maternal or neonatal outcome apart from an increased failure rate (30%) to complete vaginal delivery after application of the vacuum extractor. It is concluded that the vacuum extractor is a comparable instrument for midcavity or lift-out instrumental delivery but Kielland's forceps may still be a more appropriate instrument for rotational vaginal delivery.

摘要

进行了一项为期2年的回顾性分析,以比较使用硅橡胶杯真空吸引器和产钳作为手术阴道分娩首选器械的局限性。虽然使用真空吸引器与较低的产妇发病率相关(会阴切开率为54.9%;无镇痛率为20.9%)且新生儿问题相当,但与产钳分娩相比,其失败率有所增加(6.5%)(阴道分娩失败率为0.7%)。比较它们在旋转阴道分娩中的使用情况,除了使用真空吸引器后完成阴道分娩的失败率增加(30%)外,未发现产妇或新生儿结局有任何显著差异。得出的结论是,真空吸引器是中腔或娩出器械分娩的可比器械,但基兰德产钳可能仍是旋转阴道分娩更合适的器械。

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