本文選題：手動負壓吸引術(shù) + 電動負壓吸引術(shù)�。� 參考：《天津醫(yī)科大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的觀察并比較手動負壓吸宮術(shù)(MVA)與電動負壓吸宮術(shù)(EVA)終止妊娠小于等于56天的早期妊娠的不全流產(chǎn)率、術(shù)中失血量、宮頸擴張、吸刮宮次數(shù)、手術(shù)時間、對受術(shù)者造成的疼痛等方面的情況,以探究MVA在終止早孕期人工流產(chǎn)術(shù)中的安全性、有效性及其特性,以便在臨床中適當?shù)膽?yīng)用。方法研究對象為早孕時間小于等于56天、有手術(shù)人工流產(chǎn)要求的女性492人,將研究對象隨機分成觀察組和對照組兩個組,觀察組252例,采用MVA行人工流產(chǎn)吸宮術(shù)(MVA組);對照組240例,采用EVA行人工流產(chǎn)吸宮術(shù)(EVA組)。比較兩組宮腔吸出物總量、手術(shù)時間和術(shù)中受術(shù)者疼痛程度,是否需要擴張宮頸,若需擴張宮頸,記錄宮頸擴張棒的號數(shù),吸宮及刮宮次數(shù)。結(jié)果MVA組未擴宮者占94.0%,EVA組未擴宮者占3.3%,MVA組和EVA組在擴張宮頸方面比較差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P0.05),MVA組需擴宮者明顯少于EVA組。MVA組吸宮1次者占22.2%,吸宮2次者占74.2%,吸宮3次者占3.6%,EVA組吸宮1次者占37.9%,吸宮2次者占46.7%,吸宮3次者占15.4%,MVA組和EVA組刮宮分別占47.2%和54.6%,MVA組和EVA組在吸刮宮次數(shù)方面比較差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P0.05)。MVA組宮腔吸出物總量37.4ml,EVA組宮腔吸出物總量32.3ml,MVA組和EVA組比較宮腔吸出物總量差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P0.05)。MVA組手術(shù)時間約2.7分鐘,EVA組約4.7分鐘,MVA組和EVA組在手術(shù)時間上比較差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P0.05),MVA組手術(shù)時間比EVA組要短。在沒有任何麻醉的前提下,MVA組和EVA組受術(shù)者手術(shù)中感受到的疼痛比較差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P0.05),MVA組術(shù)中疼痛評分比EVA組低。MVA組和EVA組術(shù)中都未發(fā)生并發(fā)癥。結(jié)論對于妊娠小于等于56天的早期妊娠人工流產(chǎn)吸宮手術(shù),MVA組和EVA組相比,兩者有相似的有效性及安全性,且MVA具有減少擴張宮頸、手術(shù)時間相對短、減少手術(shù)造成的疼痛等優(yōu)點。
[Abstract]:Objective to observe and compare the incomplete abortion rate, intraoperative blood loss, cervical dilatation, the times of curettage, and the operation time between manual negative pressure aspiration (MVA) and electric negative pressure aspiration (EVA) for termination of pregnancy less than 56 days. To explore the safety, efficacy and characteristics of MVA in the termination of early pregnancy induced abortion. Methods A total of 492 women with an early pregnancy of less than 56 days were randomly divided into two groups: the observation group and the control group. 252 cases in the observation group were divided into two groups, the control group (n = 252) and the control group (n = 252). The MVA group was treated with MVA and the control group with EVA. The total amount of uterine cavity aspiration, the time of operation, the degree of pain in operation, whether the cervix should be dilated or not, the number of cervical dilatation rod, the number of uterine suction and the number of curettage were compared between the two groups. Results there was a significant difference between the MVA group and the EVA group in the cervical dilatation between the MVA group (94.0%) and the EVA group (3.3%). There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of cervical dilatation. The number of patients in the MVA group who needed to expand the uterus was significantly less than that in the EVA group (22.2c), the second time in the EVA group was 74.2%, and the third time in the EVA group. There was no significant difference in the number of curettage times between MVA group and EVA group (47.2% and 54.6%), respectively (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the number of curettage times between MVA group and EVA group (37.4 ml 路EVA group) in the area of uterine curettage, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of curettage times (P0.05. MVA group), MVA group (37.4 ml) and EVA group (37.4 ml / kg) respectively, with no significant difference in the number of curettage times (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the total amount of intrauterine aspirates between the EVA group and the EVA group. There was no significant difference in the total amount of the intrauterine aspirates between the two groups. The operation time of the EVA group was 2.7 minutes and that of the EVA group was 4.7 minutes. There was a significant difference between the MVA group and the EVA group in the operation time. There was significant difference in the operation time between the MVA group and the EVA group. The time was shorter than that in EVA group. Under the condition of no anesthesia, there was significant difference in the pain between MVA group and EVA group. The pain score of MVA group was lower than that of EVA group. MVA group and EVA group had no complications during operation. Conclusion compared with EVA group, MVA group and EVA group have similar efficacy and safety for early pregnancy induced abortion with less than 56 days gestation, and MVA can reduce cervix dilatation, and the operation time is relatively short. Reduce pain caused by surgery, etc.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：R169.42

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張保合;林霞;孫廣范;俞奇;;手動負壓吸引對人工流產(chǎn)術(shù)臨床效果的影響[J];中國醫(yī)學(xué)創(chuàng)新;2016年18期

2 張文;吳尚純;;手動負壓吸引人工流產(chǎn)術(shù)可接受性的系統(tǒng)評價[J];中國計劃生育學(xué)雜志;2015年07期

3 張文;吳尚純;;手動負壓吸引人工流產(chǎn)術(shù)技術(shù)特性的系統(tǒng)評價[J];中國計劃生育學(xué)雜志;2015年06期

4 張文;吳尚純;;手動負壓吸引人工流產(chǎn)術(shù)安全性的系統(tǒng)評價[J];中國計劃生育學(xué)雜志;2015年05期

5 張文;吳尚純;;手動負壓吸引人工流產(chǎn)術(shù)有效性的系統(tǒng)評價[J];中國計劃生育學(xué)雜志;2015年04期

6 裘亞娟;賴玲珠;;藥物聯(lián)合手動負壓吸引器用于人工流產(chǎn)術(shù)的療效觀察[J];現(xiàn)代實用醫(yī)學(xué);2013年12期

7 徐春遠;趙泉東;張琳;張彩鳳;張閩寧;馬麗麗;高云;翟建平;童艷;肖長慧;王鳳;張卓玉;;兩種負壓吸引器用于終止早期妊娠的隨機對照臨床觀察[J];中國計劃生育學(xué)雜志;2013年12期

8 申愛梅;;手動負壓吸引人工流產(chǎn)術(shù)的臨床效果分析[J];中國婦幼保健;2013年24期

9 陳曉新;;心語疏通下手動與單純電動負壓吸引人工流產(chǎn)術(shù)臨床效果比較[J];河北醫(yī)藥;2013年06期

10 俞艷錦;莊亞玲;錢志大;陳繡瑛;黃麗麗;;藥物流產(chǎn)的可接受性及影響因素分析[J];中國計劃生育學(xué)雜志;2012年11期

，

本文編號：1884474