This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ＂J＂-shaped uterine incision for caesarean section for patients diagnosed with placenta previa. A total of 55 consecutive cases of placenta previa treated in Union Hosp...This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ＂J＂-shaped uterine incision for caesarean section for patients diagnosed with placenta previa. A total of 55 consecutive cases of placenta previa treated in Union Hospital were retrospectively analyzed over a period of two years and 10 months. The subjects were divided into two groups with respect to the uterine incision. Twenty-four pregnant women with placenta previa who were indicated for caesarean section underwent the procedure using a new ＂J＂-shaped uterine incision and 31 pregnant women with placenta previa received caesarean section that used the traditional transverse incision. The two groups were compared in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, infant expulsion time, exhaust time and postoperative recovery. Meanwhile, comparison was also made in neonatal clinical data between the two groups. Compared with the ＂J＂-shaped incision group, the traditional incision group had a lower Apgar scores （P〈0.05）. However, there existed no statistically significant differences in the overall time of operation and postoperative period of breaking wind （P〉0.05）. It is concluded that, with caesarean section for placenta previa patients, the ＂J＂-shaped uterine incision significantly decreases intraoperative blood loss and facilitates the fetal delivery.展开更多
背景:涉及距下关节的跟骨关节内骨折约占全部跟骨骨折的75%,而对于移位型跟骨关节内骨折,手术治疗要优于非手术治疗。然而对于治疗时机、手术指征、切口选择、是否植骨等问题目前仍有争议。经典的“L”型入路因其较高的切口并发症而有...背景:涉及距下关节的跟骨关节内骨折约占全部跟骨骨折的75%,而对于移位型跟骨关节内骨折,手术治疗要优于非手术治疗。然而对于治疗时机、手术指征、切口选择、是否植骨等问题目前仍有争议。经典的“L”型入路因其较高的切口并发症而有逐渐被微创内固定所取代的趋势。目的:比较撬拨复位微创置板及“L”型切口切开复位钢板内固定治疗SandersⅡ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折的临床疗效。方法:选择汕头市中医院骨二科2016年1月至2019年1月收治的SandersⅡ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折患者60例,随机分为撬拨复位微创置板组(n=32)和“L”型切口组(n=28),分别采用闭合撬拨复位微创置板和经“L”型切口切开复位钢板内固定治疗。术后6个月末次随访按美国矫形外科足踝协会评分优良率评价2组手术疗效,对比2组患者术前等待天数、手术时间、住院天数及并发症发生率,术前、术后及末次随访时分别测定患者Böhler角、Gissane角并加以比较。结果与结论:①撬拨复位微创置板组美国矫形外科足踝协会评分优良率为91%,“L”型切口组为93%,2组比较差异无显著性意义(P>0.05);②2组术后Böhler角、Gissane角均较术前明显改善(P<0.05);术后1 d 2组Gissane角相当(P>0.05),Böhler角变化“L”型切口组优于撬拨复位微创置板组(P<0.05);末次随访2组Böhler角及Gissane角均有不同程度丢失,差异无显著性意义(P>0.05);③“L”型切口组患者的术前等待天数、住院天数均多于撬拨复位微创置板组(P<0.05);手术时间少于撬拨复位微创置板组(P<0.05);④撬拨复位微创置板组并发症发生率为9%,低于“L”型切口组的32%(P<0.05);⑤提示与传统“L”型切口切开复位内固定相比,撬拨复位微创置板治疗SandersⅡ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折临床疗效满意,创伤小,并发症少,值得临床推荐。展开更多
基金supported by a grant from the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (No. 30872776)
文摘This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ＂J＂-shaped uterine incision for caesarean section for patients diagnosed with placenta previa. A total of 55 consecutive cases of placenta previa treated in Union Hospital were retrospectively analyzed over a period of two years and 10 months. The subjects were divided into two groups with respect to the uterine incision. Twenty-four pregnant women with placenta previa who were indicated for caesarean section underwent the procedure using a new ＂J＂-shaped uterine incision and 31 pregnant women with placenta previa received caesarean section that used the traditional transverse incision. The two groups were compared in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, infant expulsion time, exhaust time and postoperative recovery. Meanwhile, comparison was also made in neonatal clinical data between the two groups. Compared with the ＂J＂-shaped incision group, the traditional incision group had a lower Apgar scores （P〈0.05）. However, there existed no statistically significant differences in the overall time of operation and postoperative period of breaking wind （P〉0.05）. It is concluded that, with caesarean section for placenta previa patients, the ＂J＂-shaped uterine incision significantly decreases intraoperative blood loss and facilitates the fetal delivery.
文摘背景:涉及距下关节的跟骨关节内骨折约占全部跟骨骨折的75%,而对于移位型跟骨关节内骨折,手术治疗要优于非手术治疗。然而对于治疗时机、手术指征、切口选择、是否植骨等问题目前仍有争议。经典的“L”型入路因其较高的切口并发症而有逐渐被微创内固定所取代的趋势。目的:比较撬拨复位微创置板及“L”型切口切开复位钢板内固定治疗SandersⅡ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折的临床疗效。方法:选择汕头市中医院骨二科2016年1月至2019年1月收治的SandersⅡ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折患者60例,随机分为撬拨复位微创置板组(n=32)和“L”型切口组(n=28),分别采用闭合撬拨复位微创置板和经“L”型切口切开复位钢板内固定治疗。术后6个月末次随访按美国矫形外科足踝协会评分优良率评价2组手术疗效,对比2组患者术前等待天数、手术时间、住院天数及并发症发生率,术前、术后及末次随访时分别测定患者Böhler角、Gissane角并加以比较。结果与结论:①撬拨复位微创置板组美国矫形外科足踝协会评分优良率为91%,“L”型切口组为93%,2组比较差异无显著性意义(P>0.05);②2组术后Böhler角、Gissane角均较术前明显改善(P<0.05);术后1 d 2组Gissane角相当(P>0.05),Böhler角变化“L”型切口组优于撬拨复位微创置板组(P<0.05);末次随访2组Böhler角及Gissane角均有不同程度丢失,差异无显著性意义(P>0.05);③“L”型切口组患者的术前等待天数、住院天数均多于撬拨复位微创置板组(P<0.05);手术时间少于撬拨复位微创置板组(P<0.05);④撬拨复位微创置板组并发症发生率为9%,低于“L”型切口组的32%(P<0.05);⑤提示与传统“L”型切口切开复位内固定相比,撬拨复位微创置板治疗SandersⅡ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折临床疗效满意,创伤小,并发症少,值得临床推荐。
