目的:探讨适用于瘢痕子宫患者安全有效的中孕引产方法。方法:瘢痕子宫中孕引产患者100例,随机分3组,第一组30例,依沙吖啶羊膜腔注射引产;第二组33例,米非司酮联合米索前列醇引产;第三组37例,米非司酮联合依沙吖啶引产。比较三种方法的临床效果和不良反应。结果:第二组与一组相比排胎时间短,引产成功率高,胎盘胎膜残留率低,无宫颈裂伤,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。第三组与第一组相比宫缩发动时间提前,排胎时间短,引产成功率高,胎盘胎膜残留率低,无宫颈裂伤,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);与第二组相比宫缩发动时间提前(P<0.05),余项相比无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:第二、三种引产方法优于第一种,此两种方法用于瘢痕子宫中孕引产安全有效,值得临床推广应用,第三种方法更优于第二种。 Objective: To explore a safe and effective method of induction of labor in pregnant women with uterine scar. Methods: 100 cases of induced uterine pregnancy in pregnant women were randomly divided into 3 groups, the first group of 30 cases, according to the amniotic membrane injection of amniotic fluid induced abortion; the second group of 33 cases, mifepristone combined with misoprostol induction of labor; the third Group of 37 cases, mifepristone combined with ethacridine induced labor. Compare the clinical effects and adverse reactions of the three methods. Results: The second group had shorter rowing times, higher success rate of induction of labor, lower residual rate of fetal membranes and no cervical laceration than the other group (P <0.05). Compared with the first group, the third group had earlier onset of contractions, shorter rowing times, higher successful induction of labor, lower residual rate of fetal membranes and no cervical laceration (P <0.05) Comparing the two groups, the onset time of uterine contractions was earlier (P <0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). Conclusion: The second and third methods are better than the first. The two methods are safe and effective for inducing abortion in uterine scar, which is worthy of clinical application. The third method is superior to the second method.