对剖宫产术后瘢痕子宫女性再次妊娠分娩方式的分析

Analysis of uterine scar pregnancy delivery after cesarean section women

目的:探讨分析剖宫产术后瘢痕子宫女性再次妊娠的分娩方式。方法:对2010年2月~2012年2月期间我院收治的164例再次妊娠患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。在这164例患者中,有剖宫产术后瘢痕子宫再次妊娠患者82例,我们将其分为观察A组、观察B组。观察A组的76例患者进行剖宫产手术,观察B组的6例患者进行阴道分娩。有非剖宫产术后疤痕子宫再次妊娠患者82例,我们将其分为对照A组和对照B组。对照A组的76例患者进行剖宫产手术,对照B组的6例患者进行阴道分娩。生产结束后,我们对这164例患者的相关指标进行对比分析。结果:观察A组患者发生产后出血的例数明显多于对照A组患者,二者相比差异具有显著性(P<0.05)。观察A组患者发生盆腔粘连的例数明显多于对照A组患者,二者相比差异具有显著性(P<0.05)。观察A组患者的产后出血量明显多于观察B组患者,二者相比差异具有显著性(P<0.05)。观察A组患者的住院时间明显多于观察B组患者,二者相比差异具有显著性(P<0.05)。观察B组和对照B组的患者在产后出血量、新生儿窒息、先兆子宫破裂方面的差异不具显著性(P>0.05)。结论:剖宫产术后瘢痕子宫女性再次妊娠并不是其再次进行剖宫产手术的绝对指征,应根据产妇的自身情况为其选择合适的分娩方式。

Objective: To explore how to rationally choose cesarean uterine scar pregnancy and childbirth way again. Methods: 82 cases of cesarean uterine scar pregnancy, pregnant women, and the observation group A for cesarean section in 76 cases, the observation group B 6 cases of vaginal delivery; and selected non cesarean uterine scar pregnancy, pregnant women, the control group A for cesarean section in 76 cases, control group B 6 cases vaginal delivery. The final results of each delivery and maternal and infant complications were compared and analyzed. Results: the observation group A and control group A in the amount of postpartum bleeding, pelvic adhesion with significant differences, and the P<0.05; the observation group A and group B in postpartum hemorrhage volume, average hospitalization time has significant difference, P<0.05; group B and group B in the amount of postpartum hemorrhage and neonatal asphyxia, and threatened uterine rupture there is no difference in the rate, P>0.05. Conclusion: the absolute mean cesarean uterine scar pregnancy and not the sign, but mainly through operation mode. In the trial production conditions of vaginal delivery with a certain safety. At the same time to ensure the safety of mother and child, but also to avoid the rupture of uterus.