两种宫颈扩张球囊用于足月妊娠促宫颈成熟的比较

摘要
图/表
参考文献(17)
相关文章 (13)

全文: PDF (0 KB) HTML (43 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的比较两种宫颈扩张球囊用于足月妊娠促宫颈成熟的临床效果。方法选取我院2015年10月～2016年2月住院待产的104例单胎头位初产妇，均具有引产指征，宫颈Bishop评分＜6分。将患者随机分为两组，使用COOK双腔宫颈扩张球囊组（COOK球囊组）54例，使用单腔宫颈扩张球囊组（单腔球囊组）50例。比较两组产妇应用球囊后宫颈成熟情况、放置时间、放置后自然临产情况、阴道分娩率、产后出血、新生儿窒息、产后24 h血常规及产妇满意度的情况。结果COOK球囊组与单腔球囊组产妇的引产前宫颈Bishop评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。COOK球囊组的平均放置时间（11.00±1.66）h短于单腔球囊组的（13.10±3.56）h，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）。COOK球囊组与单腔球囊组的自然临产率分别为15.7%、24.0%，促宫颈成熟有效率为88.9%、86.0%，经阴道分娩率为76.9%、72.0%，差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。COOK球囊组与单腔球囊组的新生儿出生体重分别为（3220.00±356.90）g、（3102.00±403.85）g，新生儿窒息率3.7%、2.0%，产后出血率5.6%、8.0%，产后24 h的白细胞计数（12.2±2.5）×109/L、（12.5±2.7）×109/L，产妇满意度85.1%、78.0%，差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。结论COOK双腔宫颈扩张球囊与单腔宫颈扩张球囊促宫颈成熟效果相似，单腔宫颈扩张球囊放置时间长于COOK双腔球囊，但未对新生儿及产妇造成不良影响，因此，两种方法均可广泛用于临床促宫颈成熟。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	胡玉芹
	朱斌
	梁健梅

关键词 ：足月妊娠, 促宫颈成熟, COOK双腔宫颈扩张球囊, 单腔宫颈扩张球囊, 引产

Abstract：Objective To explore the clinical effects of two kinds of cervical dilation balloon in promoting full-term pregnancy cervical mature.Methods 104 single fetal head primipara who were expectant in our hospital from October 2015 to February 2016 were selected.All of the primipara had induced labor indications，and cervical Bishop score was less than 6 scores.Patients were randomly divided into two groups.54 patients were used COOK double cavity cervical expanding balloon　（COOK balloon group），and 50 patients were used single cavity cervical expanding balloon（single cavity balloon group）.After using balloon，the cervical ripening，placing time，natural labor situation after placement，vaginal delivery rate，postpartum hemorrhage，newborn asphyxia，blood routine test in postpartum 24 h and maternal satisfaction in two groups were compared.Results Before induced labor，the cervical Bishop score between two groups had no statistical difference（P＞0.05）.The average placing time in COOK balloon group was（11.00±1.66）h，shorter than（13.10± 3.56）h in single cavity balloon group，and the difference was statistical significance　（P＜0.01）.The natural labor rate in COOK balloon group and single cavity balloon group was respectively 15.7%and 24.0%，promoting cervical mature effective rate was respectively 88.9%and 86.0%，vaginal delivery rate was respectively 76.9%and 72.0%，and all differences had no statistical significance（P＞0.05）.Birth weight of newborn in COOK balloon group and single cavity balloon group was respectively（3220.00±356.90）g and　（3102.00±403.85）g，newborn asphyxia rate was respectively 3.7%and 2.0%，postpartum hemorrhage rate was respectively 5.6%and 8.0%，white blood cell count in postpartum 24 h was respectively（12.2±2.5）×109/L and（12.5±2.7）×109/L，maternal satisfaction was respectively 85.1%and 78.0%，and all differences had no statistical significance（P＞0.05）.Conclusion The effects of COOK double cavity cervical expanding balloon with single cavity cervical expanding balloon in promoting cervical mature are similar，the placing time of single cavity cervical expanding balloon is longer than that of COOK double cavity cervical expanding balloon，but has no adverse impact on newborns and primipara.So two kinds of methods can be widely used in clinic to promote cervical mature.

Key words： Full-term pregnancy Maturing cervix COOK cervical expanding balloon Single cavity cervical expanding balloon Induced labour

基金资助:广东省广州市番禺区科技计划项目（2014-Z03-07）

作者简介: 胡玉芹（1980-），女，汉族，广东广州人，硕士，主治医师，主要从事妇产科基础及妇科肿瘤早期诊断研究

引用本文:

胡玉芹;朱斌;梁健梅. 两种宫颈扩张球囊用于足月妊娠促宫颈成熟的比较[J]. 中国当代医药, 2016, 23(19): 112-115.
HU Yu-qin;ZHU Bin;LIANG Jian-mei. Comparison of two kinds of cervical expanding balloon in promoting fullterm pregnancy cervical mature. 中国当代医药, 2016, 23(19): 112-115.

链接本文:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/ 或 http://dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/Y2016/V23/I19/112

［1］	Schoorel E，Van Kuijk S，Melman S，et al.Vaginal birth after a caesarean section：the development of a western European population-based prediction model for deliveries at term［J］. Intern J Obstet Gynaecol，2014，121（2）：194-201.
［2］	Rath W，Kehl S.The renais sance of transcervical balloon catheters for cervical ripening and labour induction［J］. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd，2015，75（11）：1130-1139.
［3］	Dgl M，Vanky E，Heimstad R.Changes in induction methods have not influenced cesarean section rates among women with induced labor［J］.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand，2016，95 （1）：112-115.
［4］	李云秀，付帅，柏智杨，等.宫颈扩张球囊促宫颈成熟及引产的效果［J］.广东医学，2013，34（15）：2358-2360.
［5］	杨雯，曾友玲，宋晓婕.欣普贝生与COOK球囊用于足月妊娠初产妇引产对比观察［J］.山东医药，2015，55（19）：56-58.
［6］	崔金晖，滕奔琦，伍玲，等.宫颈扩张球囊与控释地诺前列酮栓用于足月妊娠促宫颈成熟的临床研究［J］.中华围产医学杂志，2013，16（10）：622-626.
［7］	王晓宇，李斌，范颖.双球囊扩张、欣普贝生及催产素促宫颈成熟的疗效及安全性比较［J］.山东医药，2014，54（16）：72-74.
［8］	孔晓虹，马玉燕，菅凤.不同容量小水囊对足月妊娠促宫颈成熟的临床观察［J］.实用妇产科杂志，2013，29（12）：925-927.
［9］	中华医学会妇产科学分会产科学组.妊娠晚期促宫颈成熟与引产指南（2014）［J］.中华妇产科杂志，2014，49（12）：881-885.
［10］	Cheuk QK，Lo TK，Lee CP，et al.Double balloon catheter for induction of labour in Chinese women with previous caesarean section：one-year experience and literature review［J］.Hong Kong Med J，2015，21（3）：243-250.
［11］	王琴娟，徐英.探讨普贝生与宫颈扩张球囊应用于足月妊娠引产的安全性［J］.生殖医学杂志，2015，24（12）：1038-1040.
［12］	徐艳.低位水囊在足月妊娠计划分娩引产中的应用［J］.山东医药，2011，51（30）：55-56.
［13］	Pennell CE，Henderson JJ，O′Neill MJ，et a1.Induction of labour in nulliparous women with all unfavourable cervix：a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2gel［J］.BJOG，2009，116（11）：1443-1452.
［14］	张胜英，史杨娟，张丽娜.一次性宫颈球囊扩张器在足月妊娠引产中的应用［J］.齐齐哈尔医学院学报，2015，36（3）：336-337.
［15］	Hoppe KK，Schiff MA，Peterson SE，et al.Randomized controlled trial：comparing 80mL double versus 30mL single balloon catheters for pre-induction cervical ripening［J］. AJOG，2014，210（Suppl 1）：S326.
［16］	Salim RL，Zafran N，Nachum Z，et al.Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor：a randomized controlled trial［J］.Obstet Gynecol，2011，118 （1）：79-86.
［17］	Mei-Dan E，Walfisch A，Valencia C，et al.Making cervical ripening EASI：a prospective controlled comparison of single versus double balloon catheters［J］.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med，2014，27（17）：1765-1770.