Suppr超能文献

剖宫产术后四种失血估计方法的比较。

Comparison of four methods of blood loss estimation after cesarean delivery.

作者信息

Withanathantrige Manoj, Goonewardene Malik, Dandeniya Ranmalie, Gunatilake Pabashani, Gamage Sasini

机构信息

Academic Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, Teaching Hospital, Mahamodara, Galle, Sri Lanka.

Academic Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, Teaching Hospital, Mahamodara, Galle, Sri Lanka; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna, Galle, Sri Lanka.

出版信息

Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 Oct;135(1):51-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.03.036. Epub 2016 Jul 4.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess agreement between four different methods of blood loss estimation after lower-segment cesarean delivery (LSCD).

METHODS

A secondary analysis was undertaken of a randomized controlled trial of three timings of cord clamping during LSCD performed at a center in Sri Lanka between January 21 and April 30, 2013. Eligible women underwent prepartum LSCD at 37-39weeks of pregnancy. Estimated blood loss (EBL) was assessed by a combined method (direct measurements of spilled blood and sucker bottle volumes, and weighing of surgical towels and drapes before and after use), according to visual assessments by the surgeon and by anesthesiologists, and by measurement of preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels.

RESULTS

Among 156 participants, mean EBL was 502mL (95% CI 370-618) from the combined method, 506mL (412-643) calculated from hemoglobin levels, 484mL (367-621) by the surgeon's estimation, and 491mL (361-612) by anesthesiologists' estimation (P=0.32). Visual assessment of EBL by anesthesiologists had the best intraclass correlation (0.713) and limits of agreement with the combined method. There were no significant differences between the proportion of cases in which anesthesiologists and the surgeon underestimated or overestimated the EBL when compared with the combined method.

CONCLUSION

EBL should be ideally obtained by the combined method.

摘要

目的

评估下段剖宫产术(LSCD)后四种不同失血估计方法之间的一致性。

方法

对2013年1月21日至4月30日在斯里兰卡一个中心进行的LSCD期间三种脐带钳夹时机的随机对照试验进行二次分析。符合条件的女性在妊娠37 - 39周时接受产前LSCD。估计失血量(EBL)通过联合方法(直接测量溢出的血液和吸引瓶中的血量,以及使用前后手术巾和手术单的称重)、外科医生和麻醉医生的视觉评估以及术前和术后血红蛋白水平的测量来评估。

结果

在156名参与者中,联合方法得出的平均EBL为502mL(95%CI 370 - 618),根据血红蛋白水平计算得出的为506mL(412 - 643),外科医生估计的为484mL(367 - 621),麻醉医生估计的为491mL(361 - 612)(P = 0.32)。麻醉医生对EBL的视觉评估具有最佳的组内相关性(0.713)以及与联合方法的一致性界限。与联合方法相比,麻醉医生和外科医生低估或高估EBL的病例比例之间没有显著差异。

结论

理想情况下,应通过联合方法获得EBL。

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