论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨宫颈环形电刀锥切术(LEEP)对分娩方式的影响,分析LEEP后自然分娩的产程特点。方法:选择既往行LEEP术、单胎、产前检查无剖宫产指征、自然进入产程的初产妇31例做为观察组,在其前及后或同时进入产程的无宫颈手术史的62例初产妇作为对照组,比较两组产程中的剖宫产率及产程的时间。结果:观察组产程中的剖宫产率为9.7%(3/31),对照组的剖宫产率为11.3%(7/62),两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组总产程时间(9.2±2.1)h,对照组总产程(10.1±3.5)h,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组潜伏期(3.8±1.7)h,活跃期(4.2±2.1)h,对照组分别为(4.3±2.5)h和(4.7±1.6)h,两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组均无宫颈裂伤病例。结论:LEEP不增加产程中的剖宫产率,不影响产程进展,不能作为剖宫产指征。
Objective: To investigate the effect of cervical circular electrotome conization (LEEP) on the mode of delivery and analyze the characteristics of labor during natural childbirth after LEEP. Methods: There were 31 cases of primipara caused by past LEEP, single fetus and prenatal examination without spontaneous cesarean section, and then entered the labor history without cervix operation before and after the same time Cases of primipara as a control group, comparing the cesarean section rate of labor in both groups and labor time. Results: The cesarean section rate was 9.7% (3/31) in the observation group and 11.3% (7/62) in the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). The total duration of labor was (9.2 ± 2.1) h in the observation group and 10.1 ± 3.5 h in the control group (P> 0.05). The latent period (3.8 ± 1.7) h and the active period ) h in the control group were (4.3 ± 2.5) h and (4.7 ± 1.6) h, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). Conclusion: LEEP does not increase cesarean section rate in labor, does not affect the progress of labor, and can not be used as an indication of cesarean section.