论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨人工流产术中有效实用的镇痛方法。方法:将400例自愿进行人工流产的早孕妇女,随机分为A组(宫颈表面麻醉组)、B组(宫颈旁阻滞麻醉组)、C组(异丙酚静脉麻醉组)、D组(常规人工流产),每组100例,对4组镇痛效果、宫颈松弛情况、人工流产综合征及术中平均出血量及手术费用进行对比。结果:3个麻醉组镇痛效果、宫颈扩张、人工流产综合征均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义,术中平均出血量各组间差异无统计学意义,上述3种镇痛方法均为有效的镇痛方法。3个麻醉组中,A、B组优于C组,差异有显著性,A、B组差异无显著性;宫颈扩张、工流产综合征发生率,3组差异无统计学意义;手术费用C组远远超过A、B组,差异有统计学意义。结论:上述镇痛方法均有效,各有利弊,临床上可根据具体情况选择不同的镇痛方法。
Objective: To explore effective and practical analgesic methods in induced abortion. Methods: A total of 400 pregnant women who volunteered for induced abortion were randomly divided into group A (cervical surface anesthesia group), group B (cervical para - block anesthesia group), group C (propofol intravenous anesthesia group), group D Conventional abortion), 100 cases in each group, analgesic effect of 4 groups, cervical relaxation, abortion syndrome and intraoperative blood loss and surgical costs were compared. Results: The analgesic effect, cervical dilatation and induced abortion syndrome in the three anesthesia groups were better than the control group, the difference was statistically significant, mean intraoperative blood loss was no significant difference between the groups, the above three methods of analgesia were For effective analgesic methods. Three anesthesia group, A, B group was better than C group, the difference was significant, A, B group no significant difference; cervical dilatation, the incidence of induced abortion syndrome, the three groups showed no significant difference; operation cost C Group far exceeds A, B group, the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: The above analgesic methods are effective, each has its own advantages and disadvantages, according to the specific clinical choice of different analgesic methods.