Suppr超能文献

剖宫产术中失血估计:方法比较

Estimating blood loss during cesarean delivery: A comparison of methods.

作者信息

Gari Abdulrahim, Hussein Khulood, Daghestani Mazin, Aljuhani Sarah, Bukhari Mahdya, Alqahtani Abrar, Almarwani Miznah

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, KSA.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Jeddah, KSA.

出版信息

J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2022 Apr 11;17(5):732-736. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2022.03.004. eCollection 2022 Oct.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Obstetrical hemorrhage contributes significantly to maternal morbidity and mortality. Assessment of blood loss while undergoing cesarean sections (CS) is essential in lowering the morbidity and mortality, however this amount is commonly underestimated by the surgeon and probably the anesthetist too.

METHODS

This study addresses this issue by comparing three separate ways of assessing blood loss during cesarean sections. For each of 97 full-term pregnant women undergoing elective CS, blood loss was measured by the following: visual estimation by both the obstetrician and the anesthetist, weighing surgical pads pre operatively and post operatively and by calculations (multiplying the difference of pre-operative and postoperative hemoglobin values by the patient's estimated blood volume).

RESULTS

The results of this study indicated that the lowest estimated value for blood loss came from visual estimation, while the highest value came from the mathematical formula. Anesthetists were more accurate in their visual estimation of blood loss than were obstetricians.

CONCLUSION

This study found the amount of blood loss during CS to be overestimated by the mathematical calculation and underestimated by obstetricians. However, the estimate given by anesthetists was close to that obtained by weighing pads. This underscores the need for more accurate methods of blood loss estimation in cesarean sections to be adopted.

摘要

目的

产科出血是导致孕产妇发病和死亡的重要原因。剖宫产术中准确评估失血量对于降低发病率和死亡率至关重要,但外科医生甚至麻醉医生通常都会低估这一数值。

方法

本研究通过比较剖宫产术中三种不同的失血量评估方法来解决这一问题。对于97例行择期剖宫产的足月孕妇,分别采用以下方法测量失血量:产科医生和麻醉医生的视觉估计、术前和术后对手术垫称重以及通过计算(用术前和术后血红蛋白值的差值乘以患者估计血容量)。

结果

本研究结果表明,失血量估计值最低的是视觉估计法,最高的是数学公式法。麻醉医生对失血量的视觉估计比产科医生更准确。

结论

本研究发现,剖宫产术中的失血量通过数学计算被高估,而被产科医生低估。然而,麻醉医生的估计值与称重法所得结果接近。这凸显了在剖宫产术中采用更准确的失血量估计方法的必要性。

相似文献

1
Estimating blood loss during cesarean delivery: A comparison of methods.
J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2022 Apr 11;17(5):732-736. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2022.03.004. eCollection 2022 Oct.
2
Impact of surgeon annual volume on short-term maternal outcome in cesarean delivery.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;215(1):85.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.03.028. Epub 2016 Mar 19.
4
Comparison of four methods of blood loss estimation after cesarean delivery.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 Oct;135(1):51-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.03.036. Epub 2016 Jul 4.
5
Validation of a new method to assess estimated blood loss in the obstetric population undergoing cesarean delivery.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep;221(3):267.e1-267.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.022. Epub 2019 Jun 20.
6
7
A new index for obstetrics safety and quality of care: integrating cesarean delivery rates with maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Apr;226(4):556.e1-556.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.10.005. Epub 2021 Oct 8.
8
Techniques for assisting difficult delivery at caesarean section.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 31;2016(1):CD004944. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004944.pub3.
9
Estimation of blood loss after cesarean section and vaginal delivery has low validity with a tendency to exaggeration.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(12):1448-52. doi: 10.1080/00016340600985032.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Literature Review: Physiological Management for Preventing Postpartum Hemorrhage.
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 May 31;9(6):658. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9060658.
2
Quantitative Blood Loss in Obstetric Hemorrhage: ACOG COMMITTEE OPINION, Number 794.
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;134(6):e150-e156. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003564.
3
Postpartum hemorrhage: early identification challenges.
Semin Perinatol. 2019 Feb;43(1):11-17. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2018.11.003. Epub 2018 Nov 14.
4
Agreement of surgical blood loss estimation methods.
Transfusion. 2019 Feb;59(2):508-515. doi: 10.1111/trf.15052. Epub 2018 Nov 29.
5
Estimating Blood Loss.
Anesth Analg. 2017 Jul;125(1):13-14. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002121.
6
The Incidence of Postpartum Hemorrhage in Pregnant Women with Placenta Previa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 20;12(1):e0170194. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170194. eCollection 2017.
7
The more you lose the more you miss: accuracy of postpartum blood loss visual estimation. A systematic review of the literature.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Jan;31(1):106-115. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1274302. Epub 2017 Jan 12.
8
10
Measurement of blood loss during postpartum haemorrhage.
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015 Feb;24(1):8-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2014.07.009. Epub 2014 Jul 27.

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