无痛人流术与普通人流术的临床疗效对比和风险因素分析

The Clinical Effect and Risk Analysis of Painless Induced Abortion and Artificial Abortion

目的探讨无痛人流术与普通人流术的临床效果,并分析无痛人流术的危险因素。方法将234例早孕女性随机分为普通人流术组(n=117)和无痛人流术组(n=117),对比两组人流综合征发生情况和流产效果。结果无痛人流术组无痛发生率显著高于普通人流术组(56.4%VS 3.4%,P<0.05);无痛人流组手术时间、术中出血量及术后阴道流血时间均少于普通人流术组(P<0.05);无痛人流术组人流综合征发生率显著低于普通人流术组(1.7%VS 14.5%,P<0.05);相对普通人流术组,无痛人流组患者具有配合程度高、子宫颈扩张与软化程度好的特点,但其意识恢复慢。结论无痛人流术可减少患者痛苦,缩短手术时间,减少人流综合征的发生,但同时存在麻醉风险,需麻醉师配合完成。

OBJECTIVE To explore the clinical effect of painless induced abortion and artificial, and analysis risk factors of painless induced abortion. METHODS 234 cases of pregnancies women were divided into painless induced abortion group（n=ll7） and artificial abortion group（n=117）. Induced abortion syndrome and abortion effect of two groups were compared. RESULTS The painless rate of painless induced abortion group was lower than in the artificial abortion group（56.4% VS 3.4%, P〈0.05）. The operation time, intra- operative bleeding volume and the time of vaginal bleeding after operation of was significantly less than in the artificial abortion group（P〈0.05）. The induced abortion syndrome rate of painless induced abortion group was significantly lower than in the artificial abortion group（1.7% VS 14.5%, P〈0.05）. Compared with artificial abortion group, painless induced abortion group were improve the degree of patients＇ cooperation and cervical dilatation, but consciousness recovery time were extended. CONCLUSION The pain- less induced abortion could reduce pain for patients, the operative time and induced abortion syndrome rate. But there was anesthe- sia risk in operation, it needed an anesthesiologist cooperation to complete the operation.