论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨以及分析首次剖宫产为腹壁切口纵切口或横切口对于再次剖宫产影响结果进行比较,以选择以利于受术者的手术方式。方法:回顾性分析2009-2013年我院再次剖宫产的产妇140例的临床资料,首次剖宫产术腹壁切口为纵切口70例作为A组,腹壁切口为横切口70例为B组,两组年龄、孕周、平均孕产次、第一次术后距再次手术时间、胎儿体重等均无统计学差异。比较两组患者的再次剖宫产手术中的情况:1.腹壁及盆腔粘连情况;2.娩出胎头困难与否;3.手术总时间;4.术中出血量;5术后切口愈合率。全部140例产妇再次进行剖宫术之后,B组手术时间明显长于对照组,胎儿娩出困难发生率、术中出血量明显多于A组。两组各项之间的比较结果差异性显著(P<0.05),均具有统计学意义。但盆腔粘连及术后切口愈合率无明显差异性。结论:对有可能行再次剖宫产的孕妇应慎重选择首次剖宫产的手术方式。
OBJECTIVE: To investigate and analyze the effect of the first cesarean section on the longitudinal incision or transverse incision of abdominal incision on the effect of cesarean section, so as to select the mode of operation in favor of the subject. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2009-2013 again cesarean section in our hospital 140 cases of clinical data, the first cesarean section abdominal incision for longitudinal incision 70 cases as group A, abdominal incision for transverse incision 70 cases for group B, There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gestational age, average maternity time, the time from the first operation to the time of reoperation, and fetal weight. Cesarean section was compared between two groups of patients in the case of surgery: 1. Abdominal wall and pelvic adhesions; 2. The delivery of fetal head difficult or not; 3. The total operation time; 4. Intraoperative bleeding; 5 incision healing rate . All 140 mothers after cesarean section again, the operation time of group B was significantly longer than the control group, the incidence of difficult delivery of the fetus, blood loss was significantly more than A group. The differences between the two groups were significant (P <0.05), both of which were statistically significant. However, pelvic adhesions and postoperative wound healing rate was no significant difference. Conclusion: Pregnant women who have the potential to undergo another cesarean section should be carefully chosen for the first cesarean section.