本文選題：瑞芬太尼　切入點(diǎn)：分娩鎮(zhèn)痛　出處：《東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(醫(yī)學(xué)版)》2017年04期

【摘要】：目的:觀察兩種分娩鎮(zhèn)痛方法對(duì)產(chǎn)婦第二產(chǎn)程鎮(zhèn)痛效果、會(huì)陰損傷情況,比較產(chǎn)婦、麻醉醫(yī)生、產(chǎn)科醫(yī)生、助產(chǎn)士接受率。方法:選擇在本院住院161例分娩產(chǎn)婦,隨機(jī)分為硬膜外分娩鎮(zhèn)痛組(Y組,76例)及瑞芬太尼靜脈分娩鎮(zhèn)痛+會(huì)陰阻滯組(J組,85例)。采用視覺(jué)模擬評(píng)分(VAS)評(píng)估鎮(zhèn)痛效果,比較兩組產(chǎn)程時(shí)間、會(huì)陰損傷情況、第二產(chǎn)程VAS、產(chǎn)婦和醫(yī)護(hù)接受率。結(jié)果:(1)Ⅰ、Ⅱ度會(huì)陰裂傷率J組高于Y組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.01);Ⅲ度會(huì)陰裂傷率、陰道裂傷兩組差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。第二產(chǎn)程VAS分值Y組低于J組,但差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。(2)產(chǎn)婦接受率Y組低于J組(P0.05),麻醉醫(yī)生、產(chǎn)科醫(yī)生和助產(chǎn)士接受率Y組高于J組(均P0.05)。結(jié)論:硬膜外分娩鎮(zhèn)痛較靜脈分娩鎮(zhèn)痛聯(lián)合會(huì)陰阻滯能夠顯著減少會(huì)陰損傷,但第二產(chǎn)程鎮(zhèn)痛效果兩者無(wú)差異;靜脈分娩鎮(zhèn)痛產(chǎn)婦接受率高,而硬膜外分娩鎮(zhèn)痛麻醉醫(yī)生、產(chǎn)科醫(yī)生和助產(chǎn)接受率高。
[Abstract]:Objective: to observe the analgesic effect of two kinds of labor analgesia methods on the second stage of labor and the perineum injury, and to compare the acceptance rate of parturient, anesthesiologist, obstetrician and midwife.Methods: 161 cases of parturient in our hospital were randomly divided into epidural analgesia group (n = 76) and remifentanil group (n = 85).Visual analogue score (VAS) was used to evaluate the analgesic effect and to compare the duration of labor, perineum injury, VASs of the second stage of labor, and the acceptance rate of maternal and medical care between the two groups.Results the rate of perineal laceration in group 鈪，

本文編號(hào)：1688305