不同引产方式对中期妊娠的引产效果

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (15)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (33 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To explore the effect of different induced labor on midterm pregnancy induced labor.Methods The clinical data of 100 cases of intermediate pregnancy induced labor from March 2013 to March 2018 were analyzed retrospectively,according to the different induction methods,they were divided into the observation group and the control group,50 cases in each group.The observation group was used Mifepristone combined with Misoprostol for induction of labor,the control group was took Rivanol for induction of labor,comparative analysis of the two groups of patients with the success rate of labor induction,induction of labor and postpartum hemorrhage,patient complications and satisfaction rate.Results The success rate of the patients in the observation group was up to 100.00%,significantly higher than that in the control group 92.00%,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05）.In the observation group,the induced labor time was shorter than that in the control group,and the blood loss was lesser than that in the control group,the differences were statistically significant(P＜0.01）.The total incidence rate of complication was 2.00%in the observation group,compared with the control group of 14.00%,and the total satisfaction rate was 98.00%,which was higher than in the control group (82.00%),and the differences were statistically significant(P＜0.05）.Conclusion Period of pregnancy induced labor way more,Mifepristone combined Misoprostol mid pregnancy induced labor success rate is high,the induced labor of short time,less blood loss and complication rate low,high safety,and patient satisfaction is high,is worth popularization and application.

Key words： Intermediate pregnancy induced labor Different inducing modes Mifepristone Misoprostol rivanol

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	LIANG Zheng-yi

Cite this article:

LIANG Zheng-yi. The effect of different induced labor on midterm pregnancy[J]. 中国当代医药, 2018, 25(23): 139-141.

URL:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/ OR http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/Y2018/V25/I23/139

[1]	屈在卿，马润玫，杜明钰，等.剖宫产瘢痕子宫妊娠孕中期引产方法的探讨[J].实用妇产科杂志，2016，32（1）：77-79.
[2]	柯青霞.剖宫产术后瘢痕子宫中期妊娠两种引产方式的疗效观察[J].现代诊断与治疗，2016，27（13）：2493-2494.
[3]	蒋倩颖，罗蒲英，熊员焕，等.中孕完全性前置胎盘状态引产方式的探讨[J].中国妇幼保健，2016，31（11）：2260-2263.
[4]	蔡鑫.瘢痕子宫中期妊娠3种引产方式应用效果比较[J].河南医学研究，2016，25（11）：2045-2046.
[5]	陈升平.瘢痕子宫中期妊娠3种引产方式的临床疗效观察[J].中国生育健康杂志，2015，12（5）：440-441.
[6]	黄蕾.不同引产方式用于瘢痕子宫合并前壁胎盘完全性胎盘前置状态中期妊娠的效果[J].实用妇科内分泌电子杂志，2016，3（4）： 116，118.
[7]	陈颖文.中期妊娠并胎盘前置（中央性）患者的引产方法及效果分析[J].实用中西医结合临床，2015，15（8）：35-36.
[8]	刘永平.米非司酮联合米索前列醇对瘢痕子宫妊娠引产的效果及安全性分析[J].中国妇幼保健，2015，30（8）：1215-1217.
[9]	朱筱丹.米索前列醇不同给药方式终止中期妊娠的临床疗效及安全性研究[J].中国临床药理学杂志，2015，31（22）：2220-2222.
[10]	王艳丽，张洁.瘢痕子宫中期妊娠引产方式的效果评价[J].中国现代医药杂志，2015，7（8）：71-72.
[11]	顾梅桂.瘢痕子宫中期妊娠引产方式临床比较分析[J].实用妇科内分泌电子杂志，2016，3（20）：46-47.
[12]	李江琼.按不同的给药方式使用米非司酮和米索前列醇对中期妊娠孕妇进行引产的效果对比[J].当代医药论丛，2016，14（4）：178-179.
[13]	陈小娣，周莉莉.孕中期剖宫产瘢痕子宫65例引产方式及产后并发症状况的临床分析[J].浙江创伤外科，2017，22（2）：284-285.
[14]	王晶，姜文.三种中期妊娠终止方式的临床效果观察[J].中国医刊，2017，52（6）：52-55.
[15]	邱飞君，劳佩薇，王芬萍，等.孕14周至16周服用米非司酮米索前列醇片与利凡诺尔针囊注射引产效果研究[J].中国性科学，2015，11（3）：98-101.