Suppr超能文献

与中骨盆旋转式经阴道助产术所用器械相关的母婴发病率:一项前瞻性队列研究。

Maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to the instrument used for mid-cavity rotational operative vaginal delivery: a prospective cohort study.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, St Michael's Hospital, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

BJOG. 2013 Nov;120(12):1526-32. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12398. Epub 2013 Aug 7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with alternative instruments used to perform a mid-cavity rotational delivery.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two university teaching hospitals in Scotland and England.

POPULATION

Three hundred and eighty-one nulliparous women who had a mid-cavity rotational operative vaginal delivery.

METHODS

A data collection sheet was completed by the research team following delivery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Postpartum haemorrhage, third- and fourth-degree perineal tears, low cord pH, neonatal trauma, and failed or sequential operative vaginal delivery.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-three women (42.8%) underwent manual rotation followed by non-rotational forceps delivery, 73 (19.1%) had a rotational vacuum delivery, and 145 (38.1%) delivered with the assistance of rotational (Kielland) forceps. The rates of postpartum haemorrhage were similar when comparing manual rotation with rotational vacuum (adjusted OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.66-3.98), and when comparing manual rotation with Kielland forceps (adjusted OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.71-2.88). The results were comparable for third- and fourth-degree perineal tears (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.13-1.89; adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39-1.82), low cord pH (adjusted OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.44-6.91; adjusted OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44-2.83), neonatal trauma (adjusted OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.16-1.55; adjusted OR 3.25, 95% CI 0.65-16.17), and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (adjusted OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.45-4.81; adjusted OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.49-2.19). The sequential use of instruments was less likely with manual rotation and forceps than with rotational vacuum delivery (0.6 versus 36.9%, OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.002-0.090).

CONCLUSIONS

Maternal and perinatal outcomes are comparable with Kielland forceps, vacuum extraction, and manual rotation, with few serious adverse outcomes. With appropriate training mid-cavity rotational delivery can be practiced safely, including the use of Kielland forceps.

摘要

目的

比较用于行中骨盆旋转式分娩的不同助产器械相关的母婴发病率。

设计

前瞻性队列研究。

地点

苏格兰和英格兰的两所大学教学医院。

人群

381 例初产妇行中骨盆旋转式经阴道助产。

方法

研究团队在分娩后完成数据采集表。

主要观察指标

产后出血、Ⅲ度和Ⅳ度会阴撕裂伤、脐血 pH 值降低、新生儿损伤以及失败或连续行经阴道助产。

结果

163 例产妇(42.8%)行手法旋转联合非旋转产钳助产,73 例(19.1%)行旋转式真空吸引助产,145 例(38.1%)使用旋转式(Kielland)产钳助产。手法旋转联合旋转式真空吸引助产与手法旋转联合产钳助产相比,产后出血发生率相似(校正比值比 1.42,95%置信区间 0.66-3.98),手法旋转联合 Kielland 产钳助产与手法旋转联合产钳助产相比,产后出血发生率相似(校正比值比 1.22,95%置信区间 0.71-2.88)。Ⅲ度和Ⅳ度会阴撕裂伤(校正比值比 0.85,95%置信区间 0.13-1.89;校正比值比 0.94,95%置信区间 0.39-1.82)、脐血 pH 值降低(校正比值比 1.76,95%置信区间 0.44-6.91;校正比值比 1.12,95%置信区间 0.44-2.83)、新生儿损伤(校正比值比 0.50,95%置信区间 0.16-1.55;校正比值比 3.25,95%置信区间 0.65-16.17)和新生儿重症监护病房收治率(校正比值比 1.47,95%置信区间 0.45-4.81;校正比值比 1.04,95%置信区间 0.49-2.19)差异均无统计学意义。与旋转式真空吸引助产相比,手法旋转联合产钳或联合 Kielland 产钳助产更可能需要连续使用器械(0.6%比 36.9%,比值比 0.01,95%置信区间 0.002-0.090)。

结论

Kielland 产钳、真空吸引助产和手法旋转助产的母婴结局相当,严重不良结局少见。经适当培训后,中骨盆旋转式分娩可安全实施,包括 Kielland 产钳的使用。

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