双叶产钳在头位助产中的应用及与kivi的比较分析
|
摘要
目的对双叶产钳在头位助产中的应用及与kivi进行比较分析。方法该次研究对象为该院2017年8月—2018年8月之间收治的65例需要使用产钳进行助产的单胎产妇,以随机为原则,将全部产妇分为两组,实验组和常规组中分别为33例产妇和32例产妇,分别给予kivi助产和双叶产钳助产,观察对比两组产妇的助产情况。结果实验组产妇和常规组产妇的会阴切开人数分别为16例(48.48%)和28例(87.50%),会阴Ⅰ度损伤人数分别为2例(6.25%)和11例(34.37%),会阴Ⅱ度损伤人数分别为0例和2例(6.25%),会阴Ⅲ度损伤人数分别为0例和1例(3.12%),会阴完整人数分别为12例(36.36%)和2例(6.25%)(χ~2=13.023、11.456、10.748、12.335、11.406,P<0.05);助产成功人数分别为31例(93.93%)和32例(100.00%)(χ~2=2.744,P>0.05);实验组产妇和常规组产妇的平均手术时间分别为(37.2±9.5)min和(46.4±11.0)min,平均胎头取出时间分别为(103.5±10.8)s和(121.4±12.7)s(t=10.273、11.425,P<0.05);实验组新生儿和常规组新生儿Apgar评分>7分的人数分别为7例(21.21%)和18例(56.25%),Apgar评分为5～6分的人数分别为26例(78.79%)和14例(43.75%)(P<0.05)。Apgar评分为5分以下的人数均为0例。结论选择使用kivi进行头位助产,虽然助产成功率略低于应用双叶,但是差异无统计学意义,且在会阴切开、会阴损伤、会阴完整情况方面,手术时间、胎头取出时间方面,以及新生儿Apgar评分方面,双叶产钳的应用效果均优于kivi,可见双叶产钳在头位助产头位助产中具有良好的应用效果。
Objective To compare the application of double-leaf forceps in the first position of midwifery and kivi. Methods This study was conducted in our hospital from August 2017 to August 2018. 65 single-part women who needed to use the forceps for midwifery were randomly divided into two groups. In the experimental group and the conventional group, 33 cases of maternal and 32 cases of maternal, respectively, were given kivi midwifery and double-leaf forceps for midwifery, and the maternal status of the two groups were observed and compared. Results The number of perineal incisions in the maternal and conventional groups was 16 cases(48.48%) and 28 cases(87.50%), respectively. The number of perineal injury was 2 cases(6.25%) and 11 cases(34.37%). The number of perineal Ⅱ degree injuries was 0 cases and 2 cases(6.25%) respectively. The number of perineal Ⅲ degree injuries was 0 cases and1 cases(3.12%) respectively. The total number of perineum injuries was 12 cases(36.36%) and 2 cases(6.25%)(χ~2=13.023, 11.456,10.748, 12.335, 11.406, P<0.05); the number of successful midwifery was 31 cases(93.93%) and 32 cases(100.00%),(χ~2=2.744, P>0.05). The mean operative time of the maternal and routine women in the experimental group were(37.2±9.5) min and(46.4±11.0) min,respectively, and the average fetal head removal time was(103.5 ±10.8) s and(121.4±12.7) s, respectively(t=10.273、11.425,P<0.05);the number of newborns in the neonatal and routine neonates in the experimental group >7 points were 7 cases(21.21%) and 18 cases(56.25%), respectively, and the Apgar score was 5～6 points. The number of people was 26 cases(78.79%) and 14 cases(43.75%)(P<0.05). The number of people with an Apgar score of 5 points or less was 0 points. Conclusion On the choice of using kivi for head position, although the success rate of midwifery is slightly lower than the application of double leaves, but there is no statistical difference, and in the perineal incision, perineal injury, perineal integrity, surgery time, fetal head In terms of time of removal and neonatal Apgar score, the application effect of the two-leaf forceps was better than that of kivi. It can be seen that the two-leaf forceps have a good application effect in the head position of the midwifery.
Objective To compare the application of double-leaf forceps in the first position of midwifery and kivi. Methods This study was conducted in our hospital from August 2017 to August 2018. 65 single-part women who needed to use the forceps for midwifery were randomly divided into two groups. In the experimental group and the conventional group, 33 cases of maternal and 32 cases of maternal, respectively, were given kivi midwifery and double-leaf forceps for midwifery, and the maternal status of the two groups were observed and compared. Results The number of perineal incisions in the maternal and conventional groups was 16 cases(48.48%) and 28 cases(87.50%), respectively. The number of perineal injury was 2 cases(6.25%) and 11 cases(34.37%). The number of perineal Ⅱ degree injuries was 0 cases and 2 cases(6.25%) respectively. The number of perineal Ⅲ degree injuries was 0 cases and1 cases(3.12%) respectively. The total number of perineum injuries was 12 cases(36.36%) and 2 cases(6.25%)(χ~2=13.023, 11.456,10.748, 12.335, 11.406, P<0.05); the number of successful midwifery was 31 cases(93.93%) and 32 cases(100.00%),(χ~2=2.744, P>0.05). The mean operative time of the maternal and routine women in the experimental group were(37.2±9.5) min and(46.4±11.0) min,respectively, and the average fetal head removal time was(103.5 ±10.8) s and(121.4±12.7) s, respectively(t=10.273、11.425,P<0.05);the number of newborns in the neonatal and routine neonates in the experimental group >7 points were 7 cases(21.21%) and 18 cases(56.25%), respectively, and the Apgar score was 5～6 points. The number of people was 26 cases(78.79%) and 14 cases(43.75%)(P<0.05). The number of people with an Apgar score of 5 points or less was 0 points. Conclusion On the choice of using kivi for head position, although the success rate of midwifery is slightly lower than the application of double leaves, but there is no statistical difference, and in the perineal incision, perineal injury, perineal integrity, surgery time, fetal head In terms of time of removal and neonatal Apgar score, the application effect of the two-leaf forceps was better than that of kivi. It can be seen that the two-leaf forceps have a good application effect in the head position of the midwifery.
引文
[1]张述霞.双叶产钳与胎头吸引器和kivi助产方式的比较[J].中国社区医师:医学专业,2010,12(24):89.
[2]屈莉红,吕梅芳,赵淑萍.探讨双叶产钳、kivi和胎头吸引术在剖宫产中的应用[J].中国现代医学杂志,2009,19(13):1982-1985.
[3]王冬莲.双叶产钳与胎头吸引器、kivi助产方式的比较[J].中华现代临床医学杂志,2005,3(14):27-29.
[4]石英坤.剖宫产术中小产钳以枕横位助娩胎头的临床效果分析[J].中国医疗器械信息,2018,24(8):104-105.
[5]施琰.低位产钳助产术在产科分娩中的应用效果及并发症分析[J].中国当代医药,2017,24(25):94-96.
[6]王冬华.对产妇进行胎头吸引助产与低位产钳助产的临床效果分析[J].当代医药论丛,2015,13(21):195-196.
[7]王亚男,林嫦梅.自由体位配合分娩车在第一产程晚期及第二产程的应用效果[J].中华现代护理杂志,2017,23(14):1860-1862.
[8]吕丹.低位产钳术与剖宫产术对母儿预后影响的相关分析[J].中国医疗器械信息,2018,24(15):107-108.
[9]许聪颖.双叶产钳在剖宫产术中助娩胎头的应用效果[J].医疗装备,2018,31(8):114.
[10]黄倩.低位产钳助产术在产科分娩中的应用效果及安全性分析[J].中国卫生标准管理,2018,9(7):36-37.
[11]李淑云.双叶产钳在新式剖宫产术中助娩胎头的临床价值观察[J].现代诊断与治疗,2018,29(3):455-457.
[12]许青,张莉.单叶产钳在头位助产中的应用及与双叶产钳的比较[J].新疆医学, 2009, 39(8):95-97.
[2]屈莉红,吕梅芳,赵淑萍.探讨双叶产钳、kivi和胎头吸引术在剖宫产中的应用[J].中国现代医学杂志,2009,19(13):1982-1985.
[3]王冬莲.双叶产钳与胎头吸引器、kivi助产方式的比较[J].中华现代临床医学杂志,2005,3(14):27-29.
[4]石英坤.剖宫产术中小产钳以枕横位助娩胎头的临床效果分析[J].中国医疗器械信息,2018,24(8):104-105.
[5]施琰.低位产钳助产术在产科分娩中的应用效果及并发症分析[J].中国当代医药,2017,24(25):94-96.
[6]王冬华.对产妇进行胎头吸引助产与低位产钳助产的临床效果分析[J].当代医药论丛,2015,13(21):195-196.
[7]王亚男,林嫦梅.自由体位配合分娩车在第一产程晚期及第二产程的应用效果[J].中华现代护理杂志,2017,23(14):1860-1862.
[8]吕丹.低位产钳术与剖宫产术对母儿预后影响的相关分析[J].中国医疗器械信息,2018,24(15):107-108.
[9]许聪颖.双叶产钳在剖宫产术中助娩胎头的应用效果[J].医疗装备,2018,31(8):114.
[10]黄倩.低位产钳助产术在产科分娩中的应用效果及安全性分析[J].中国卫生标准管理,2018,9(7):36-37.
[11]李淑云.双叶产钳在新式剖宫产术中助娩胎头的临床价值观察[J].现代诊断与治疗,2018,29(3):455-457.
[12]许青,张莉.单叶产钳在头位助产中的应用及与双叶产钳的比较[J].新疆医学, 2009, 39(8):95-97.