GT-4A电脑疼痛治疗仪分娩镇痛与椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛的临床效果比较
|
摘要
目的探讨椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛和GT-4A电脑疼痛治疗仪分娩镇痛的临床效果。方法选取2017年5月至2018年5月我院接收的孕足月初产妇80例,产程进入活跃期后根据自愿原则分为导乐仪组(采用GT-4A电脑疼痛治疗仪镇痛, n=62)和椎管组(采用椎管内阻滞麻醉, n=18)。两组产妇均在宫口开大2～3 cm,产程进入活跃期开始采取分娩镇痛,观察其镇痛效果及相关指标。结果椎管组的镇痛有效率为100.0%,明显高于导乐仪组的80.6%(P <0.05)。导乐仪组第二产程及第二产程活跃期均明显短于椎管组(P <0.05);两组的第三产程比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。导乐仪组的阴道助产率明显低于椎管组(P <0.05),两组的阴道平产率、剖宫产率比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。两组的新生儿Apgar评分及产妇产后2 h出血量比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论椎管内阻滞麻醉和GT-4A电脑疼痛治疗仪的镇痛效果均较好,对母婴的健康均无影响,应在产妇知情的情况下根据其意愿选择镇痛方法,综合分析具体应用。
Objective To explore the clinical effects of intravertebral anesthesia for labor analgesia and GT-4A computer pain treatment apparatus for labor analgesia. Methods 80 cases of full-term primiparas admitted to our hospital from May 2017 to May 2018 were selected and divided into Doula group(using GT-4A computer pain apparatus for analgesia, n = 62) and intravertebral group(using intravertebral block anesthesia, n = 18) according to the voluntary principle of puerperas with active labor process. Both groups received labor analgesia when the uterine orifice opened to 2 to 3 cm and the labor process entered the active period. The analgesic effect and related indicators were observed. Results The analgesic effective rate of the intravertebral group was 100.0%, significantly higher than 80.6% of the Doula group(P <0.05). The second stage of labor and the active period of the Doula group were significantly shorter than those of the intravertebral group(P <0.05). No statistical difference was found in the third stage of labor between the two groups(P >0.05). The vagina assistant delivery rate of the Doula group was significantly lower than that of the intravertebral group(P <0.05). No statistical difference was found in the vaginal natural delivery rate and cesarean section rate between the two groups(P >0.05). No statistical difference was found in the Apgar scores and postpartum 2 h blood loss between the two groups(P >0.05). Conclusions Both intravertebral block anesthesia and GT-4A computer pain treatment apparatus have good analgesic effects, and have no influence on maternal and infant health. The analgesic method should be chosen according to puerperas' wishes, and the specific application should be analyzed comprehensively.
Objective To explore the clinical effects of intravertebral anesthesia for labor analgesia and GT-4A computer pain treatment apparatus for labor analgesia. Methods 80 cases of full-term primiparas admitted to our hospital from May 2017 to May 2018 were selected and divided into Doula group(using GT-4A computer pain apparatus for analgesia, n = 62) and intravertebral group(using intravertebral block anesthesia, n = 18) according to the voluntary principle of puerperas with active labor process. Both groups received labor analgesia when the uterine orifice opened to 2 to 3 cm and the labor process entered the active period. The analgesic effect and related indicators were observed. Results The analgesic effective rate of the intravertebral group was 100.0%, significantly higher than 80.6% of the Doula group(P <0.05). The second stage of labor and the active period of the Doula group were significantly shorter than those of the intravertebral group(P <0.05). No statistical difference was found in the third stage of labor between the two groups(P >0.05). The vagina assistant delivery rate of the Doula group was significantly lower than that of the intravertebral group(P <0.05). No statistical difference was found in the vaginal natural delivery rate and cesarean section rate between the two groups(P >0.05). No statistical difference was found in the Apgar scores and postpartum 2 h blood loss between the two groups(P >0.05). Conclusions Both intravertebral block anesthesia and GT-4A computer pain treatment apparatus have good analgesic effects, and have no influence on maternal and infant health. The analgesic method should be chosen according to puerperas' wishes, and the specific application should be analyzed comprehensively.
引文
[1]李欣荣,滕平,韩桂芹.导乐仪与椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛疗效对比观察[J].医学综述, 2013, 19(2):351-353.
[2]吕燕,倪永梅,刘红艳,等.椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛对产程和分娩结果影响的临床观察[J].昆明医科大学学报, 2014, 35(5):142-144.
[3]张洪娟,付丽洁,侯文峰,等.乐蓓尔分娩镇痛仪联合导乐与椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛临床效果分析[J].哈尔滨医药, 2015, 35(5):387-389.
[4]李红,张巧维.椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛对产程和分娩结果影响分析[J].系统医学, 2018, 3(7):109-110, 125.
[5]王静,李菊,蔺莉,等.椎管内分娩镇痛在剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道分娩中的应用[J].中国微创外科杂志, 2018, 18(2):127-129, 133.
[2]吕燕,倪永梅,刘红艳,等.椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛对产程和分娩结果影响的临床观察[J].昆明医科大学学报, 2014, 35(5):142-144.
[3]张洪娟,付丽洁,侯文峰,等.乐蓓尔分娩镇痛仪联合导乐与椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛临床效果分析[J].哈尔滨医药, 2015, 35(5):387-389.
[4]李红,张巧维.椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛对产程和分娩结果影响分析[J].系统医学, 2018, 3(7):109-110, 125.
[5]王静,李菊,蔺莉,等.椎管内分娩镇痛在剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道分娩中的应用[J].中国微创外科杂志, 2018, 18(2):127-129, 133.