Suppr超能文献

阴道助产器械的选择

Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery.

作者信息

O'Mahony Fidelma, Hofmeyr G Justus, Menon Vijay

机构信息

Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Newcastle Road, Stoke-on-Trent, UK, ST4 6QG.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10(11):CD005455. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Instrumental or assisted vaginal birth is commonly used to expedite birth for the benefit of either mother or baby or both. It is sometimes associated with significant complications for both mother and baby. The choice of instrument may be influenced by clinical circumstances, operator choice and availability of specific instruments.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate different instruments in terms of achieving a vaginal birth and avoiding significant morbidity for mother and baby.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of assisted vaginal delivery using different instruments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted the data, and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (6597 women) in this review. Forceps were less likely than the ventouse to fail to achieve a vaginal birth with the allocated instrument (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.94). However, with forceps there was a trend to more caesarean sections, and significantly more third- or fourth-degree tears (with or without episiotomy), vaginal trauma, use of general anaesthesia, and flatus incontinence or altered continence. Facial injury was more likely with forceps (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.12 to 23.25). Using a random-effects model because of heterogeneity between studies, there was a trend towards fewer cases of cephalhaematoma with forceps (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.11).Among different types of ventouse, the metal cup was more likely to result in a successful vaginal birth than the soft cup, with more cases of scalp injury and cephalhaematoma. The hand-held ventouse was associated with more failures than the metal ventouse, and a trend to fewer than the soft ventouse.Overall forceps or the metal cup appear to be most effective at achieving a vaginal birth, but with increased risk of maternal trauma with forceps and neonatal trauma with the metal cup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a recognised place for forceps and all types of ventouse in clinical practice. The role of operator training with any choice of instrument must be emphasised. The increasing risks of failed delivery with the chosen instrument from forceps to metal cup to hand-held to soft cup vacuum, and trade-offs between risks of maternal and neonatal trauma identified in this review need to be considered when choosing an instrument.

摘要

背景

器械助产或辅助阴道分娩常用于加速分娩进程,以利于母亲、胎儿或二者。有时它会给母亲和胎儿带来严重并发症。器械的选择可能受临床情况、操作者的选择以及特定器械的可获得性影响。

目的

评估不同器械在实现阴道分娩以及避免母亲和胎儿出现严重发病情况方面的效果。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2010年5月31日)。

选择标准

使用不同器械进行辅助阴道分娩的随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立评估试验质量,提取数据并检查其准确性。

主要结果

本综述纳入了32项研究(6597名女性)。与胎头吸引器相比,产钳使用分配的器械未能实现阴道分娩的可能性较小(风险比(RR)0.65,95%置信区间(CI)0.45至0.94)。然而,使用产钳时有剖宫产增多以及三度或四度会阴裂伤(无论有无会阴切开术)、阴道创伤、全身麻醉使用、肠胃气胀性失禁或大小便失禁明显增多的趋势。使用产钳时面部损伤更常见(RR 5.10,95% CI 1.12至23.25)。由于研究之间存在异质性,采用随机效应模型,使用产钳时头颅血肿病例数有减少趋势(平均RR 0.64,95% CI 0.37至1.11)。在不同类型的胎头吸引器中,金属杯比软杯更有可能成功实现阴道分娩,但头皮损伤和头颅血肿病例更多。手持胎头吸引器失败的情况比金属胎头吸引器多,且有比软质胎头吸引器少的趋势。总体而言,产钳或金属杯在实现阴道分娩方面似乎最有效,但使用产钳会增加母体创伤风险,使用金属杯会增加新生儿创伤风险。

作者结论

产钳和各类胎头吸引器在临床实践中都有公认的应用价值。必须强调无论选择何种器械,操作者培训的作用。从产钳到金属杯再到手持胎头吸引器最后到软质杯状真空吸引器,所选器械分娩失败的风险不断增加,本综述中确定的母体和新生儿创伤风险之间的权衡在选择器械时需要加以考虑。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验