• 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

Maternal and neonatal morbidity in instrumental deliveries with the Kobayashi vacuum extractor and low forceps.

作者信息

Meyer L, Mailloux J, Marcoux S, Blanchet P, Meyer F

机构信息

Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

出版信息

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;66(7):643-7. doi: 10.3109/00016348709022072.

DOI:10.3109/00016348709022072
PMID:3439447
Abstract

Risks to the mother and newborn associated with the use of the Kobayashi Silastic vacuum extractor (n = 293) were compared with those associated with the use of low forceps (n = 468) in a retrospective chart review. Third or fourth degree perineal tears and vaginal and cervical lacerations were all observed less frequently among women delivered with the vacuum extractor. The need for post-partum bladder catheterization was also reduced for these women. Babies born by the means of the vacuum extractor ran an increased risk of cephalhematoma and neonatal jaundice. No difference in major neonatal morbidity was observed between the two groups. The Kobayashi instrument appears to be a useful alternative to forceps in low vaginal instrumental deliveries.

摘要

相似文献

1
Maternal and neonatal morbidity in instrumental deliveries with the Kobayashi vacuum extractor and low forceps.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;66(7):643-7. doi: 10.3109/00016348709022072.
2
A randomised prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus vacuum extraction using defined criteria.一项使用明确标准对产科产钳与真空吸引术进行的随机前瞻性试验。
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Jul;22(4):344-5. doi: 10.1080/01443610220141227.
3
Instrumental delivery: clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians.器械助产:法国妇产科学院临床实践指南。
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 Nov;159(1):43-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.06.043. Epub 2011 Jul 28.
4
Cohort study of silastic obstetric vacuum cup deliveries: I. Safety of the instrument.硅橡胶产科吸引杯分娩队列研究:I. 器械安全性
Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Oct;66(4):503-9.
5
Forceps or vacuum extraction: a comparison of maternal and neonatal morbidity.产钳或真空吸引术:母婴发病率比较
East Mediterr Health J. 2001 Jan-Mar;7(1-2):106-14.
6
Immediate maternal and neonatal effects of forceps and vacuum-assisted deliveries.产钳和真空辅助分娩对产妇和新生儿的即时影响。
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;103(3):513-8. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000114985.22844.6d.
7
Risk factors for third-degree and fourth-degree perineal lacerations in forceps and vacuum deliveries.产钳和真空吸引助产中三度及四度会阴裂伤的危险因素。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Jul;163(1 Pt 1):100-4. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(11)90678-4.
8
Forceps compared with vacuum: rates of neonatal and maternal morbidity.产钳与真空吸引器对比:新生儿及产妇发病率
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;106(5 Pt 1):908-12. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000182616.39503.b2.
9
Clinical assessment of the Kobayashi vacuum extractor.小林真空吸引器的临床评估。
Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Sep;64(3):431-5.
10
Comparison of maternal and infant outcomes between vacuum extraction and forceps deliveries.真空吸引分娩与产钳分娩的母婴结局比较。
Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Jan 15;153(2):103-7. doi: 10.1093/aje/153.2.103.

引用本文的文献

1
Risk of cervical laceration in forceps vs vacuum delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.产钳与真空吸引助产分娩时宫颈裂伤的风险:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2025 Jan;104(1):29-38. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14969. Epub 2024 Sep 15.
2
Babes in the woods: teaching the use of the vacuum extractor.林中婴儿:教授真空吸引器的使用方法。
Can Fam Physician. 1990 Oct;36:1720-4.
3
Risk factors for birth canal lacerations in primiparous women.初产妇产道裂伤的危险因素。
Am J Perinatol. 2008 May;25(5):259-64. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1075040.