论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较分析常规时间放置IUD与紧急避孕放置IUD的临床效果。方法:选取我站2011年到2013年接受的200例IUD育龄妇女,随机分为常规组和紧急组,常规组实行常规时间放置IUD,紧急组则为紧急避孕放置IUD,对两组妇女的临床效果进行比较,并且对两组的带器妊娠率、续用率、脱落率以及不良反应进行随访复查。结果:经分别处理后,两组的避孕有效率没有显著差异(P>0.05);经随访后,两组的带器妊娠率和脱落率也没有明显差异(P>0.05),但是紧急组的续用率要明显低于观察组(P<0.05),并且不良反应发生率也明显高于常规组(P<0.05)。结论:紧急避孕放置IUD和常规时间放置IUD相比较,虽然在临床疗效和安全性上不存在明显差异,但是紧急避孕放置IUD的接受程度相对较差。
OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the clinical effect of IUD placement with emergency contraception and conventional placement of IUD. Methods: A total of 200 IUD women of childbearing age from 2011 to 2013 in our hospital were randomly divided into routine group and emergency group. IUD was administered routinely in conventional group while IUD was placed in emergency group for emergency contraception. The results were compared, and the pregnancy rate of the two groups, the continuation rate, the rate of excretion and adverse reactions were followed up. Results: After treatment, there was no significant difference in contraceptive efficiency between the two groups (P> 0.05). After follow-up, there was no significant difference in the pregnancy rate and shedding rate between the two groups (P> 0.05) The continuation rate was significantly lower than the observation group (P <0.05), and the incidence of adverse reactions was also significantly higher than the conventional group (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: IUD for emergency contraception and IUD for routine time placement have relatively poor acceptance of IUD for emergency contraception, although there is no significant difference in clinical efficacy and safety.