论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨黄体酮与地屈孕酮在促排卵周期黄体支持中的应用效果比较。方法选取南京市鼓楼医院生殖中心2012年10月至2013年6月89例促排指导同房的患者为研究对象,将其按照随机数字法分为三组。对照组29例促排卵指导中不给予黄体支持,观察1组30例促排卵同房后给予黄体酮治疗,观察2组30例促排卵同房后给予地屈孕酮治疗,观察三组的应用效果。结果对照组3例怀孕单胎,妊娠率为10.34%;观察1组4例怀孕单胎,妊娠率为13.33%;观察2组3例怀孕单胎,1例怀孕双胎,妊娠率为13.33%;观察1组和观察2组的妊娠率均明显的高于对照组(χ2=7.23,χ2=7.23,P<0.05);观察1组和观察2组的妊娠率比较无明显的差异(χ2=0.34,P>0.05),统计学无意义。观察2组患者在治疗中不良反应发生率为6.67%;观察1组在治疗中不良反应发生率为3.33%。两组的不良反应发生率比较无明显的差异(χ2=1.21,P>0.05),统计学无意义。结论促排卵周期黄体支持中应用黄体酮与地屈孕酮均能够提高妊娠率,但二者之间无明显的差异,值得临床中应用与推广。
Objective To investigate the effects of progesterone and dydrogesterone on luteal phase of ovulation induction. Methods Eighty-nine patients with accelerated ovulation guidance in same-sex room from June 2012 to June 2013 in Gulou Hospital Reproductive Center of Nanjing were selected as the research subjects and divided into three groups according to random number method. Control group, 29 cases of ovulation guidance did not give corpus luteum support, observation of a group of 30 cases of ovulation induction of progesterone treatment of progesterone, 30 cases of two groups were observed after ovulation induction of dorset progesterone treatment, the observed effect of three groups. Results The pregnancy rate was 10.34% in 3 pregnant women in control group. The pregnancy rate was 13.33% in 4 pregnant women in one group. The pregnancy rate was 13.33% in 3 pregnant women and 1 pregnant woman in 2 groups. ; The pregnancy rates in observation group 1 and observation group 2 were significantly higher than those in control group (χ2 = 7.23, χ2 = 7.23, P <0.05). There was no significant difference in pregnancy rates between observation group 1 and observation group 2 (χ2 = 0.34, P> 0.05), statistically meaningless. The incidence of adverse reactions in the two groups was 6.67%. The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group 1 was 3.33%. Adverse reactions between the two groups showed no significant difference (χ2 = 1.21, P> 0.05), statistically significant. Conclusions Progesterone and dydrogesterone can increase the pregnancy rate during luteal support during ovulation induction period, but there is no significant difference between the two. It is worthy of clinical application and promotion.