论文部分内容阅读
目的:对比经典McDonald宫颈环扎术与U型加固宫颈环扎术治疗宫颈机能不全的临床效果,为临床治疗宫颈机能不全时选择手术方案提供参考。方法:回顾性分析我院58例因宫颈机能不全而行经阴道宫颈环扎术病例的资料,比较经典McDonald宫颈环扎术与U型加固宫颈环扎术在妊娠结局上的差异,主要观察指标有妊娠终止时间、分娩方式、足月儿率以及新生儿体重。结果:两种治疗方式在妊娠终止时间、分娩方式、足月儿率方面比较差异无统计学意义;新生儿体重方面,经典McDonald宫颈环扎术较U型加固宫颈环扎术平均重430.61 g,差异具有统计学意义。结论:经典McDonald宫颈环扎术较之U型加固宫颈环扎术,妊娠终止时间、分娩方式、足月儿率方面无明显差异,而可提高新生儿体重。
Objective: To compare the clinical effects of classic McDonald cervical cerclage with U-shaped cervical cerclage in the treatment of cervical incompetence, and to provide a reference for clinical treatment of cervical incompetence. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 58 cases of cervical canal in our hospital because of cervical incompetence and cesarean section data, the comparison of classic McDonald cervical cerclage and U-shaped cervical cerclage in pregnancy outcome differences, the main observation indicators Termination of pregnancy, mode of delivery, full-term childbirth and newborn weight. Results: There was no significant difference between the two treatment methods in termination of pregnancy, mode of delivery and full-term childbirth rate. In neonatology, the mean McDonald cervical cerclage was 430.61 g more than U-shaped cervical cerclage, The difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: The classic McDonald cervical cerclage compared with U-shaped cervical cerclage, termination of pregnancy, mode of delivery, full-term child rate was no significant difference, but can improve the weight of newborns.