• 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

相似文献

1
WITHDRAWN: Soft versus rigid vacuum extractor cups for assisted vaginal delivery.撤回:用于辅助阴道分娩的软质与硬质真空吸引杯
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;2010(11):CD000446. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000446.pub2.
2
Soft versus rigid vacuum extractor cups for assisted vaginal delivery.用于辅助阴道分娩的软质与硬质真空吸引杯
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD000446. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000446.
3
Instruments for assisted vaginal birth.用于辅助阴道分娩的器械。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 24;9(9):CD005455. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub3.
4
WITHDRAWN: Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery.撤回:用于辅助阴道分娩的真空吸引术与产钳术对比
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;2010(11):CD000224. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000224.pub2.
5
Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery.用于辅助阴道分娩的真空吸引术与产钳术比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD000224. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000224.
6
Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery.阴道助产器械的选择
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10(11):CD005455. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub2.
7
Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings.门诊环境中引产的药物和机械干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 13;9(9):CD007701. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007701.pub3.
8
Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour.硬膜外镇痛与非硬膜外镇痛或无镇痛用于分娩疼痛管理的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 21;5(5):CD000331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub4.
9
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.
10
Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.分娩过程中疼痛管理的催眠疗法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 19;2016(5):CD009356. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009356.pub3.

撤回:用于辅助阴道分娩的软质与硬质真空吸引杯

WITHDRAWN: Soft versus rigid vacuum extractor cups for assisted vaginal delivery.

作者信息

Johanson Richard, Menon Vijay

机构信息

(Deceased) North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;2010(11):CD000446. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000446.pub2.

DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000446.pub2
PMID:21069666
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10798409/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The original cups used for vacuum extraction delivery of the fetus were rigid metal cups. Subsequently, soft cups of flexible materials such as silicone rubber or plastic were introduced. Soft cups are thought to have a poorer success rate than metal cups. However they are also thought to be less likely to be associated with scalp trauma and less likely to injure the mother.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of soft versus rigid vacuum extractor cups on perineal injury, fetal scalp injury and success rate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Date of last search: February 2000.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Acceptably controlled comparisons of soft versus rigid vacuum extractor cups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials involving 1375 women were included. The trials were of average quality. Soft cups are significantly more likely to fail to achieve vaginal delivery (odds ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 2.29). However, they were associated with less scalp injury (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.60). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of maternal injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Metal cups appear to be more suitable for 'occipito-posterior', transverse and difficult 'occipito-anterior' position deliveries. The soft cups seem to be appropriate for straightforward deliveries.

摘要

背景

最初用于真空吸引分娩胎儿的杯状物是硬质金属杯。随后,引入了由硅橡胶或塑料等柔性材料制成的软质杯状物。人们认为软质杯状物的成功率低于金属杯。然而,也有人认为它们与头皮创伤的关联较小,对母亲造成伤害的可能性也较小。

目的

本综述的目的是评估软质与硬质真空吸引杯在会阴损伤、胎儿头皮损伤和成功率方面的影响。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库和Cochrane对照试验注册库。最后检索日期:2000年2月。

选择标准

软质与硬质真空吸引杯的可接受对照比较。

数据收集与分析

两名评价员评估试验质量并提取数据。联系研究作者获取更多信息。

主要结果

纳入了9项涉及1375名妇女的试验。这些试验质量一般。软质杯状物未能实现阴道分娩的可能性显著更高(优势比1.65,95%置信区间1.19至2.29)。然而,它们与较少的头皮损伤相关(优势比0.45,95%置信区间0.15至0.60)。两组在产妇损伤方面没有差异。

作者结论

金属杯似乎更适合“枕后位”、横位和困难的“枕前位”分娩。软质杯似乎适合顺产。