目的 探索头位初胎自然分娩中实施“限制会阴切开”对产程、严重会阴裂伤、新生儿出生评分 的影响。 方法 自然分娩头位足月初产妇314例作为限制会阴切开组，加强产程观察、产时对胎儿胎心率监测 及改进接产手法，对具有明确会阴侧切适应证者实施会阴切开助产，对于无必要者则严格限制会阴切开；以常规会阴切开的 单胎、头位、初胎自然分娩者739例为常规组。比较两组新生儿窒息率、会阴阴道裂伤率、各产程时间、产后出血量。结果 两组间第一、二、三产程时间差异无统计学意义。限制组产妇出血量稍多于常规组（ P <0.01)。轻度新生 儿窒息率两组比较差异无统计学意义。 结论 限制会阴切开的理念与实施，对产程、新生儿出生评分影响不明 显，应予推行。
Abstract
Objective To compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes of restrictive use of episiotomy (only if tearing becomes apparent) versus routine episiotomy (in all cases). Methods 314 nulliparous women at ≥37 weeks of gestation with live singleton cephalic pregnancies and no contraindication to vaginal birth, who were recruited from November 2010 to March 2011 in this department, received restrictive use of episiotomy while 739 nulliparous women from January to November in 2010 underwent episiotomy as control group. In both groups, we strengthened cardiotocograph mornitoring and intrapartum care and improved the management of the perineum (hand on or hand off). Total duration of labor including the first and the second stages of labour, and blood loss in 2 hours postpartum were recorded as a continuous variable. Apgar scores and anal sphincter (third or fourth degree) tears were also recorded. Results No significant difference was observed in each stage of labour between the two groups ( P >0.05). Restrictive use of episiotomy resulted in more blood loss than in the control group ( P <0.01). Since the cases with severe perineum tear and neonatal asphyxia in both groups were rare, they were excused from Fisher’s exact test. However, the rate of neonatal asphyxia was a little higher in restrictive use group. Conclusions According to this clinical observation, the rate of episiotomy should and could be properly reduced, as the routine and restritive use of episiotomy results in no significant difference in labor duration, anal sphincter tear or neonatal asphyxia.
关键词
限制性会阴切开 /
新生儿窒息 /
会阴裂伤
Key words
Restrictive use /
episiotomy /
perineal laceration /
neonatal asphyxia
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
［1］沈汝, 黄醒华, 项小英. 保护促进支持自然分娩［J］. 中国妇幼保健， 2002，19 (7):394-397.
［2］ 漆洪波, 蔡汉钟. 会阴切开缝合术术式选择、缝合技巧及注意事项［J］. 实用妇产科杂志, 1999,15 (1): 6-7.
［3］ 王炳顺, 周利锋, 高尔生,等.产妇产后对分娩方式的再认识［J］. 中国妇幼保健,2006,21(20): 2784-2787.
［4］ Weber A M, Meyn L. Episiotomy use in the United States, 1979–1997［J］. Obstet Gynecol ,2002, 100:1177–1182.
［5］ Frankman E A, Wang L, Bunker C H, et al . Episiotomy in the United States: has anything changed? ［J］.Am J Obstet Gynecol,2009, 200: 573.e1-573.e7.
［6］ Trochez R, Waterfield M, Freeman R M. Hands on or hands off the perineum: a survey of care of the perineum in labour (HOOPS) ［J］. Int Urogynecol J,2011,22(10): 1279-1285.
［7］ Murphy D J, Macleod M, Bahl R, et al . A randomised controlled trial of routine versus restrictive use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery: a multicentre pilot study［J］. BJOG,2008, 115(13): 1695–1703.
［8］ 朱兰,王巍. 产科会阴撕裂新分类及国际最新缝合修补术［J］.中国实用妇科与产科杂志,2010,26(4): 311-313.
［9］ Hartmann K, Kiswanathan M, Palmieri R, et al . Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review［J］. JAMA,2005,293 (17): 2141-2148.
［10］Bansal R K, Tan W M, Ecker J L, et al . Is there a benefit to episiotomy delivery? A natural experiment at spontaneous vaginal［J］. Am J Obstet Gynecol,1996,175: 897-901.
［11］Eugene Declercq, Deborah K,Cunningham, et al . Mothers’ reports of postpartum pain associated with vaginal and cesarean deliveries: results of a national survey［J］. BIRTH, 2008,35(1) : 16- 24.
［12］舒桂枝，郭瑞莲. 人文关怀与降低会阴侧切率体会［J］. 中国误诊学杂志,2009,9(17): 4101.
［13］林秀芝,王慧玲,张海燕. 沧州市助产技术人员的现状及知识能力需求调查［J］. 护理管理杂志,2010,10(11): 803- 804.
［14］〖JP3〗Sari Raisanen, KatriVehvila inen -Julkunen, Seppo Heinonen. Need for and consequences of episiotomy in vaginal birth: a critical approach［J］. Midwifery,2010,26: 348–356.
［15］Steven M, Nicole M Gatto. D A Miller I. Decreased rate of obstetrical anal sphincter laceration is associated with change in obstetric practice［J］. Int Urogynecol J, 2007, 18:1399 -1404.
PDF(690 KB)
