论文部分内容阅读
目的对比急症剖宫产与择期剖宫产的临床处理。方法选择急症剖宫产孕妇356例作为急症组,同期择期剖宫产孕妇698例作为择期组,对两组的手术指征、术前情况及常见并发症对比分析。结果急症组手术指征分布前4位分别是头盆不称占36.52%、宫缩乏力占21.91%、活跃期停滞占12.92%、宫内胎儿窘迫占10.11%;择期组手术指征分布前4位分别是宫内胎儿窘迫占25.64%、骨盆狭窄占13.32%、臀位占12.46%、疤痕子宫占11.17%;术前病理状态未纠正急症组35.39%,择期组21.78%,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。两组平均手术时间、出血量、术后肛门排气时间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。并发症发生率急症组为57.02%,择期组为16.04%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论急症剖宫产比择期剖宫产具有更多的危害性,临床处理必须果断及时,一旦做出决定,立刻做好紧急准备工作,避免出现严重并发症。
Objective To compare the clinical treatment of emergency cesarean section and elective cesarean section. Methods 356 cases of emergency cesarean section pregnant women as emergency group, 698 cases of elective cesarean section during the same period as the elective group, the two groups of surgical indications, preoperative conditions and common complications comparative analysis. Results The first 4 cases in the emergency group were respectively the cephalopelvic disproportion (36.52%), uterine inertia (21.91%), the active phase arrest (12.92%) and intrauterine fetal distress (10.11%). The elective index Respectively, intrauterine fetal distress accounted for 25.64%, pelvic stenosis accounted for 13.32%, breech accounted for 12.46%, scar uterine 11.17%; preoperative pathological state uncorrected emergency group 35.39%, elective group 21.78%, the difference between the two groups were There was statistical significance (all P <0.05). The average operation time, bleeding volume and postoperative anal exhaust time were significantly different between the two groups (P <0.05). The incidence of complications was 57.02% in emergency group and 16.04% in elective group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Cesarean section has more harmful effects than elective cesarean section. The clinical treatment must be decisive and timely. Once a decision is made, emergency preparations should be made immediately to avoid serious complications.