无痛人工流产与传统手术流产可行性的对照研究

Painless induced abortion versus traditional surgical abortion: practicability study on patient satisfactory and clinical effects

目的:探讨临床上无痛人工流产与传统手术流产的取舍原则。方法:选择行无痛人工流产术(A组)与传统手术流产术(B组)的早孕患者各200例,比较两组手术时间、宫颈松弛度、术中出血量、术后并发症以及问卷调查结果。结果:A组手术时间短于B组(P<0.05),A组术中宫颈松弛度优于B组(P<0.001),两组术中出血量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),A组操作者和患者满意度均高于B组(P<0.05),A组更愿意接受相同手术方式(P<0.001),A组发生人流综合反应少于B组(P<0.05),两组术后发生子宫穿孔等并发症的比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:无痛人工流产因存在麻醉风险、对操作者的技术要求高等因素,目前在基层医院传统手术流产仍应作为必不可少的终止早孕的方式。

Objectives： To explore the clinical selection principle of painless induced abortion and tradition- al surgical abortion. Methods： Painless induced abortion group （ group A, n = 200） and traditional surgical abor- tion group （group B, n = 200） were divided with pregnant patients, who had undergone the two procedures from February to November 2014. The operation time, cervical relaxation, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative com- plications and questionnaire results of the two groups were compared and statistically analyzed. Results ： The opera- tion time of group A was shorter than that of group B （ P 〈 0. 05 ）, and the degree of cervical relaxation of group A was better than that of group B （ P 〈 0. 001 ）. There was no difference in blood loss between the two groups （ P 〉 0. 05 ）. The operator and the patient satisfaction scores of group A were higher than that of group B （ P 〈 0.05 ）, and group A showed more willingness to accept the identical operation method （P 〈 O. 001 ）. There was less induced abortion syndrome occurred in group A （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. There was no difference of postoperative complications such as uterine perforation between the two groups （ P 〉 0. 05 ）. Conclusion： Traditional surgical abortion still remains as a necessary way to terminate a pregnancy in primary hospitals, due to the anesthetic risk and higher technical require- ments in painless induced abortion.