Suppr超能文献

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

Risk of cervical laceration in forceps vs vacuum delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Hossein-Pour Parnian, Rajasingham Maya, Muraca Giulia M

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2025 Jan;104(1):29-38. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14969. Epub 2024 Sep 15.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Cervical laceration is an obstetric injury associated with severe postpartum hemorrhage and subsequent spontaneous preterm birth. While operative vaginal delivery is a known risk factor for cervical laceration, it is unclear whether forceps and vacuum deliveries incur the same risk. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the risk of cervical laceration between operative instruments (forceps vs vacuum).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, Global Health, CENTRAL, Emcare, and Web of Science were searched from inception until August 2024 with terms related to operative vaginal delivery and cervical laceration. Studies comparing the risk of cervical laceration in individuals undergoing forceps or vacuum delivery were included. Two authors conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of all studies. Random-effects models were used to pool risk ratios across studies and certainty of evidence was assessed using Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42023421890.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 observational studies. The overall rate of cervical laceration was 0.35% (990/284218 births) where 1.04% of forceps deliveries (456/43817) were complicated by cervical laceration compared to 0.22% of vacuum deliveries (534/240401). The risk of cervical laceration was 2-5 fold greater in forceps deliveries than in vacuum deliveries: pooled unadjusted risk ratio [RR] 4.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56-14.98 among RCTs and pooled unadjusted RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.59-2.24 among observational studies. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate mainly due to the lack of attention to confounding in the included literature. The GRADE assessment indicated that the certainty of evidence was very low for observational studies and moderate for RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Low certainty of evidence indicates that forceps deliveries may be associated with an increased risk of cervical laceration compared to vacuum deliveries.

摘要

引言

宫颈裂伤是一种与严重产后出血及随后的自发性早产相关的产科损伤。虽然手术阴道分娩是宫颈裂伤的已知危险因素,但产钳和真空吸引助产是否具有相同风险尚不清楚。本系统评价的目的是比较手术器械(产钳与真空吸引)导致宫颈裂伤的风险。

材料与方法

检索了从创刊至2024年8月的Medline、Embase、Global Health、CENTRAL、Emcare和Web of Science数据库,使用与手术阴道分娩和宫颈裂伤相关的检索词。纳入比较产钳或真空吸引助产个体宫颈裂伤风险的研究。两名作者对所有研究进行筛选、数据提取和质量评估。采用随机效应模型汇总各研究的风险比,并使用Cochrane方法和GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。国际前瞻性系统评价注册库注册号CRD42023421890。

结果

13项研究符合纳入标准,其中3项随机对照试验(RCT)和10项观察性研究。宫颈裂伤的总体发生率为0.35%(284218例分娩中有990例),其中产钳助产的宫颈裂伤发生率为1.04%(43817例中有456例),而真空吸引助产的发生率为0.22%(240401例中有534例)。产钳助产导致宫颈裂伤的风险比真空吸引助产高2至5倍:RCT中汇总的未调整风险比[RR]为4.83,95%置信区间[CI]为1.56 - 14.98;观察性研究中汇总的未调整RR为1.89,95% CI为1.59 - 2.24。证据的总体质量为低到中等,主要原因是纳入文献中对混杂因素缺乏关注。GRADE评估表明,观察性研究的证据确定性非常低,RCT的证据确定性为中等。

结论

证据确定性低表明,与真空吸引助产相比,产钳助产可能会增加宫颈裂伤的风险

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/80db/11683547/4649c5ecadcb/AOGS-104-29-g003.jpg

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