Perkins R P
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Jun;23(2):583-99. doi: 10.1097/00003081-198006000-00026.
The matter of attempting to revive extraperitoneal cesarean section as a viable option appears generally to be greeted with considerable emotion. Such emotion usually arises among those unfamiliar with the technique. As shown by the data from the University of Colorado, once one becomes accustomed to the procedure, there appears to be no greater hazard than that of the standard transperitoneal approach. The data cannot be interpreted as showing a distinct advantage to extraperitoneal cesarean section, as there was a substantially higher use of preoperative antibiotics to reduce morbidity. However, the patients who underwent the exttaperitoneal procedure had a greater preoperative morbidity potential, necessitating the use of such antibiotics. Apgar scores remain lower at 1 minute, partly because of the delivery of one stillborn infant and a somewhat higher incidence of premature infants in distress. In addition, the delay in delivery of the fetus frequently encountered when inexperienced surgeons attempt this operation as a new surgical experience is clearly a factor as well. One must accept, however, that the operation has a highly attractive rationale. To place the procedure in proper perspective, a prospective, controlled study based on random selection must be done. One additional control population that would help to sort out some aspects of the benefits of the extraperitoneal approach would be a population of patients in whom routine draining of the retrovesical space is carried out, as is done in the exptraperitoneal operation. With these groups for comparison, the extraperitoneal operation may finally be placed in its true perspective. This can be accomplished only by scientific endeavor, not by speculation. Extraperitoneal cesarean section represents a viable alternative to transperitoneal delivery or cesarean hysterectomy in the presence of uterine infection, presumed or proven. Despite the wealth of information concerning the efficacy of a wide spectrum of antibiotic regimens for the prevention or treatment of postcesarean section morbidity in the modern era, infection remains a problem that has merely been somewhat controlled. It is incumbent upon resident education programs to provide trainees with the broadest spectrum of options and skills. Since the extraperitoneal operation not only has benefits in anatomic training but also possesses a rational basis for the avoidance of serious postoperative pelvic infectious complications, this operation deserves reconsideration in the modern era. The occasional postoperative pelvic abscess that subjects a patient to one or more subsequent operative procedures and to the attendant risks of death or sterility, make any procedure designed to avoid these complications appear more worthwhile. Until the demon of postoperative infection is successfully and permanently caged, we must continue to consider all reasonable options toward this end. Scheider has stated that "a difference to be a difference must make a difference." With this we agraee...
试图将腹膜外剖宫产作为一种可行的选择重新启用,这一问题似乎普遍引发了相当强烈的情绪。这种情绪通常出现在那些不熟悉该技术的人当中。正如科罗拉多大学的数据所示,一旦一个人习惯了该手术,其风险似乎并不比标准的经腹手术更大。这些数据不能被解读为表明腹膜外剖宫产有明显优势,因为为降低发病率术前使用抗生素的比例要高得多。然而,接受腹膜外手术的患者术前发病的可能性更大,因此需要使用此类抗生素。1分钟时阿氏评分仍然较低,部分原因是有一名死产婴儿出生,以及窘迫的早产儿发生率略高。此外,当经验不足的外科医生将此手术作为一种新的手术尝试时,经常会出现胎儿娩出延迟,这显然也是一个因素。然而,必须承认,该手术有一个极具吸引力的理论依据。为了正确看待该手术,必须进行一项基于随机选择的前瞻性对照研究。另一个有助于理清腹膜外手术益处某些方面的对照人群,将是那些像腹膜外手术那样对膀胱后间隙进行常规引流的患者群体。通过这些组进行比较,腹膜外手术最终可能会得到正确的认识。这只能通过科学努力来实现,而不是靠猜测。在存在子宫感染(无论是疑似还是已证实)的情况下,腹膜外剖宫产是经腹分娩或剖宫产子宫切除术的一种可行替代方案。尽管在现代有大量关于各种抗生素方案预防或治疗剖宫产术后发病疗效的信息,但感染仍然是一个只是在一定程度上得到控制的问题。住院医师培训项目有责任为学员提供最广泛的选择和技能。由于腹膜外手术不仅在解剖学训练方面有好处,而且在避免严重的术后盆腔感染并发症方面有合理的依据,因此在现代这个手术值得重新考虑。偶尔出现的术后盆腔脓肿会使患者接受一次或多次后续手术以及随之而来的死亡或不育风险,这使得任何旨在避免这些并发症的手术显得更有价值。在术后感染这个恶魔被成功且永久地关进笼子之前,我们必须继续为此考虑所有合理的选择。施奈德曾说过:“一种差异要成为差异,就必须产生影响。”对此我们表示赞同……