论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨腹式横切口与纵切口子宫下段剖宫产术的应用效果。方法抽取2014年2月—2015年10月郸城县人民医院接收的102例剖宫产产妇,根据手术方法不同分为横切口组及纵切口组,各51例。纵切口组采用腹式纵切口子宫下段剖宫产术,横切口组采用腹式横切口子宫下段剖宫产术,对比两组术后排气时间及手术情况、新生儿体质量和新生儿评分、不良反应发生率。结果横切口组术后排气时间、手术时间、术中出血量、取胎时间均明显优于纵切口组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);横切口组新生儿体质量及评分均明显高于纵切口组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);横切口组不良反应发生率为19.61%,纵切口组为47.06%,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论腹式横切口子宫下段剖宫产术治疗效果显著优于纵切口子宫下段剖宫产术,手术时间、术中出血量及术后排气时间少,且新生儿体质量高,不良反应发生率低,具有推广价值。
Objective To investigate the effect of abdominal cesarean section in abdominal transverse incision and longitudinal incision. Methods 102 cases of caesarean section received from Dancheng People’s Hospital from February 2014 to October 2015 were divided into two groups according to different surgical methods: transverse incision group and longitudinal incision group, with 51 cases in each group. Longitudinal incision group using abdominal longitudinal incision cesarean section uterine segment, transverse incision group abdominal cesarean section with abdominal transverse incision, compared two groups after the exhaust time and operation, neonatal body weight and neonatal score The incidence of adverse reactions. Results The average time of postoperative exhaust, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and fetus time of transverse incision group were significantly better than that of longitudinal incision group (P <0.05). The body weight and score of neonates in transverse incision group (P <0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in transverse incision group was 19.61%, and that in longitudinal incision group was 47.06%. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions The results of cesarean section in inferior uterine segment of abdominal transverse incision are significantly better than those of cesarean section in inferior uterine segment of longitudinal incision. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative exhaust time are less, and the neonatal body weight is high and adverse reactions occur Low rate, with promotional value.