Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Birth. 2011 Mar;38(1):80-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2010.00450.x.
A Swiss study attempted to establish normal values for the uterine involution expected during the first 5 days postpartum. Two methods were used, apparently independently and without validation. One, named the finger method, consisted of estimating the height of the uterine fundus in finger breadths above or below the umbilicus. The other, the tape method, consisted of marking the distance between the uterine fundus and the pubic symphysis on a blank tape, which was subsequently read in centimeters against a measuring tape. The authors contend that normal uterine involution postpartum is governed by different factors according to whether it is measured by fingers or by tape. Thus, gestational age affected uterine involution when measured with fingers, but not when measured with a tape, whereas maternal age did the reverse. Apart from being based on a study population that defies any criteria of normality, a comparison of the results from finger and tape methods shows data that are incompatible with the anatomy of human fingers and the uterus postpartum. Yet, the authors suggest that these data should be used to differentiate electronically between normal and abnormal uterine involution, without considering what the consequences of such nonvalidated programming might be.
一项瑞士研究试图确定产后 5 天内子宫复旧的正常值。该研究使用了两种方法，显然是独立使用的，并没有经过验证。一种方法称为手指法，它包括估计子宫底在脐上或脐下的手指宽度。另一种方法称为带尺法，它包括在空白带尺上标记子宫底与耻骨联合之间的距离，然后用米尺读出厘米数。作者认为，根据使用手指还是带尺测量，产后子宫复旧受不同因素的影响。因此，手指测量时，子宫的大小与妊娠期有关，但带尺测量时则无关；而母亲的年龄则相反。除了研究人群不符合任何正常标准之外，手指法和带尺法的结果比较表明，数据与产后手指和子宫的解剖结构不相符。然而，作者建议应该使用这些数据来区分正常和异常的子宫复旧，而不考虑这种未经验证的编程可能带来的后果。
