Peres M F, Fisher C C, Leader L R
Royal Hospital for Women, Paddington, New South Wales.
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 Nov;33(4):367-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1993.tb02111.x.
This trial was conducted to compare 2 commonly used fetal scalp electrodes with regard to ease of use, frequency and extent of neonatal injury and quality of cardiotocographic record. A randomized design was employed to study a group of 106 patients divided between a Surgicraft Copeland clip fetal scalp electrode (52 patients) and a Meditrace spiral single helix scalp electrode (54 patients). Patients were eligible for trial entry if they required an intrapartum fetal scalp electrode, at term with a singleton cephalic pregnancy. Ease of application was rated by the operator using a linear analogue score. Unidentified traces were reviewed independently for quality by 2 obstetricians and neonates were examined on day-2 postpartum for injury. The Meditrace spiral fetal scalp electrode was significantly easier to apply (unpaired t-test p < 0.02). It also obtained higher ratings for trace quality (unpaired t-test p < 0.02). There were no serious neonatal injuries and no difference was found between the 2 electrodes in this regard.
本试验旨在比较两种常用胎儿头皮电极在易用性、新生儿损伤的频率和程度以及产时胎心监护记录质量方面的差异。采用随机设计，研究了一组106例患者，分为使用Surgicraft Copeland夹式胎儿头皮电极组（52例患者）和Meditrace螺旋单螺旋头皮电极组（54例患者）。如果患者在足月单胎头位妊娠时需要产时胎儿头皮电极，则符合试验入组条件。由操作者使用线性模拟评分法对应用的难易程度进行评分。由2名产科医生独立审查未识别的痕迹质量，并在产后第2天对新生儿进行损伤检查。Meditrace螺旋胎儿头皮电极应用起来明显更容易（不成对t检验p<0.02）。其痕迹质量评分也更高（不成对t检验p<0.02）。没有严重的新生儿损伤，在这方面两种电极之间未发现差异。
