#46
|
|||
|
|||
Âëàãàëèùíûå ïðîñòàãëàíäèíû - âîò ÷òî õîðîøî èäåò è ïîêàçàíî äëÿ ñîçðåâàíèÿ øåéêè:-), íî åñëè èõ íåò, òîãäà, êîíå÷íî, ñëîæíî.
Íî âñå æå ñïàçìîëèòèêè íå ïîêàçàíû äëÿ ýòèõ öåëåé. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Öèòàòà:
Ñïàçìîëèòèêè èíîãäà â ðîäàõ èñïîëüçóþ, íî íå äëÿ ïîäãîòîâêè øåéêè. Öèòàòà:
 íàøåì îáëàñòíîì ðîääîìå, êóäà ìû ñâàëèâàåì âñþ "îòáîðíóþ" ïàòîëîãèþ ïðîöåíò îïåðàòèâíûõ ðîäîðàçðåøåíèé ñòðåìèòñÿ ê âûøåóêàçàííîìó. À ðàçáàâëÿåòñÿ òàêèìè ðàéîííûìè ðîääîìàìè, êàê ìîé ðîäíîé , ãäå êåñàðåâî 5-8 %. Ç.Û.: âåç¸ò áåäíûì ðîññèéñêèì âðà÷àì, ó âàñ ñàéòîòåê çàðåãèñòðèðîâàí è â ñâîáîäíîé ïðîäàæå |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Ïðî ýñòðîãåíû ÷¸òêîãî îòâåòà (ïðèìåíÿòü èëè íåò) íàéòè íå ìîãó. À áîëüøèíñòâî íàøèõ àêóøåðîâ ïî ñòàðèíêå íàçíà÷àþò ñèíåñòðîë è íî-øïî÷êó 4 ìë íà ãëþêîçêå ïîêàïàòü "øåéêó ïîãîòîâèòü" òîëüêî ÿ, ÷åñòíî ãîâîðÿ, ýôôåêòà îò ýòîãî íå âèäåë íè ðàçó. Ãåëü äà - ñõâàòêè, âñ¸ êàê íàäî.
Ïîäâîäÿ èòîã äåëàþ âûâîäû, ÷òî äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ïîðâàëàñü øåéêà ìàòêè â ðîäàõ íàäî: ïàòîëîãè÷åñêèå èçìåíåíèÿ â ñòðóêòóðå øåéêè (ïîñëå óøèòûõ ðàçðûâîâ, ïîñëå ÄÝÊ, ïîñëå èíôåêöèé). Ïëþñ ìîæíî øåéêó ïîðâàòü ïðè âëàãàëèùíîì èññëåäîâàíèè åñëè èìåþòñÿ øàëîâëèâûå ðó÷êè, òàê æå òðàâìèðóåòñÿ øåéêà åñëè çàñòàâèòü òóæèòüñÿ äî ïîëíîãî îòêðûòèÿ. Ñïàçìîëèòèêè íèêàêîãî ýôôåêòà íà øåéêó ìàòêó íå îêàçûâàþò, à ýïèäóðàëüíàÿ àíàëãåçèÿ îêàçûâàåò è ñàìûé ïîëîæèòåëüíûé. Ñïàñèáî, ñ óâàæåíèåì Àíäðåé Àëåêñååâ (îöåíèòå âûâîäû ïîæàëóéñòà, ìîæåò ÷òî-òî çàáûë?) |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
À ó íàñ âîò ëàìèíàðèè åùå åñòü.
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Öèòàòà:
Öèòàòà:
Öèòàòà:
À çà÷åì, åñëè åñòü ïðîñòàãëàíäèíû, ïàëî÷êè ëàìèíàðèé, ýïèäóðàëêà? |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Öèòàòà:
À òàê ñî âñåì ñîãëàñåí. |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Öèòàòà:
|
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Òî Silver: à ó Âàñ ïðîôèëüíûé ðîääîì ïàòîëîãèè èëè îáùèé?
Ó íàñ íåò ïîäîáíîãî ðàçäåëåíèÿ àêóøåðñêèõ îòäåëåíèé êàê è íåò îòäåëüíûõ ðîä äîìîâ àêóøåðñêèå îòäåëåíèÿ ÿâëÿþòñÿ ÷àñòüþ áîëüíèöû ,à ÷àñòüþ îòäåëåíèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ HRP |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Residents’ paper
Cervical lacerations: some surprising facts Reshma Parikh MDa, Susan Brotzmana and James N. Anasti MDCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author adepartment of Obstetric-Gynecology, St. Luke’s Hospital and Health Network, 801 Ostrum St, Bethlehem, PA Received 30 July 2006; revised 31 October 2006; accepted 30 November 2006. Available online 26 April 2007. Objective Our aim was to calculate the incidence of cervical lacerations after vaginal delivery and to study its associated risk factors. Study Design A retrospective chart review of all patients with a cervical laceration after vaginal delivery during a 5 year period was performed. Their risk factors were studied. A χ2 test and Bonferroni’s correction were applied. The relative risk, P values, and confidence intervals were calculated. Results Thirty-two patients of 16,931 vaginal deliveries had a cervical laceration for an incidence of 0.2%. Cervical cerclage was associated with an 11.5-fold increase (95% confidence interval 4.1 to 33.3) and induction of labor with a 3.1-fold increase (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 6.7) in the rate of cervical lacerations. Vacuum and forceps deliveries were not noted to be significant risk factors. Conclusion We noted an association of cervical lacerations with cervical cerclage and induction of labor. We were unable to detect an association with cervical lacerations and operative vaginal delivery. Key words: cerclage; cervical laceration; induction; operative delivery Article Outline Materials and Methods Statistics Results Comment References Cervical lacerations (CL) are a known cause of postpartum hemorrhage. Although CL occurs in more than half of vaginal deliveries,1 they are less than 0.5 cm in length and rarely require repair.2 In reviewing the current literature, there is paucity of information on the incidence and associated risk factors in the development of CL after vaginal delivery. The aim of this study was to calculate the incidence of cervical lacerations after vaginal delivery and to study its associated risk factors. Materials and Methods A retrospective chart analysis was performed on all patients with a cervical laceration that required repair after vaginal delivery (including operative delivery) during a 5 year period from July 1999 to May 2005 at a large community hospital. The network’s computerized patient database was used to identify the total number of vaginal, operative vaginal deliveries and cervical lacerations requiring a repair during the specified time. The following data were extracted from the charts. Factors previously suggested as potential causes of CL were identified and recorded. This included gestational and pregestational diabetes, induction of labor, operative delivery (ie, forceps, vacuum, or both), shoulder dystocia, use of pitocin, prior dilation and evacuations (D&E), conization, and cerclage. When a laceration was identified the decision to suture and suturing technique was left to the discretion of the attending physician. Presence of hemorrhage as defined by the attending physician, blood transfusion, and changes in hemoglobin were noted. Only 4 patients had a drop in hemoglobin of 4 g/dL or more, and none required a blood transfusion. Two of these patients had a delayed diagnosis and had a cervical laceration repair about 6 hours after their delivery. Other data extracted from the chart analysis are as described as in Table 1. TABLE 1. Patient demographics with cervical laceration (n = 32) Mean 95% CI Age 28.5 y 26.1–30.8 Gravidity 2.4 1.9–3.0 Parity 0.78 0.48–1.1 BMI 25.4 Kg/M2 21.0–29.8 Gestational age 38.5 weeks 37.9–39.0 Duration of 2nd stage 55 min 36–73 Total time in labor 870. min 670–1080 Weight of baby 3514 grams 3281–3748 Delta Hemoglobin 2.5 1.8–3.1 Statistics Data were analyzed using the χ2 test and Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. Bonferroni’s correction was applied to correct for multiple measurements. The relative risk and P values were calculated. Confidence intervals were calculated using Wilson’s score. Results The total number of patients with a vaginal delivery in the 5 year period was 16,931. Of these, 32 were found to have a cervical laceration that needed repair for an incidence of 0.2%. Factors found to be statistically significant are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2. Risk factors for cervical laceration Factors Total vaginal deliveries (16,931) Vaginal deliveries with cervical lacerations (32) P value Forceps 943 5 .11 Vacuum 1769 6 .13 Cerclage 210 4 <.001 Induction 6046 22 .001 Cervical cerclage was found to be associated with an 11.5-fold increase (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1 to 33.3), and induction of labor was associated with a 3.1-fold increase (95% CI 1.5 to 6.7) in the rate of cervical lacerations. After correcting for multiple measurements, forceps was not found to be of significance. None of the other risk factors analyzed from chart review were found to be of significance. No CL patients had evidence of postpartum hemorrhage. Comment Review of the literature shows multiple studies looking at cervical lacerations after cesarean section, D&Es, and second-trimester abortions. However, little information exists as to the incidence of cervical lacerations after vaginal delivery and its associated risk factors. We noted an incidence of 0.2% of our 16,832 deliveries for development of a CL. Forceps and vacuum have been known as significant risk factors for maternal soft tissue injury.3 and 4 This has been sighted as a reason for their diminished use in recent years. Interestingly, our study did not demonstrate an increase in the rate of CL with operative vaginal delivery. Controversy still exists with regard to the value of a cerclage procedure. Studies looking at different cerclage procedures quote a cervical laceration rate of 6-14%.5 and 6 We found an 11.5-fold increase in cervical lacerations after cerclage. However, this increase is not universally noted. The rate of induction of labor has doubled in recent years.7 Our induction rate was 36%, of which 15% were elective. Inducing agents, both prostaglandins and pitocin, are known to increase the risk of uterine rupture but are not mentioned as a cause of cervical lacerations.8 We found a 3.1-fold increase in cervical lacerations after induction of labor. Whether this is inherent to the medications or related to the indications of induction was not determined by our study design. This is 1 of the first studies to report the incidence of cervical laceration for vaginal deliveries and attempt to evaluate CL risk factors. However, the results are subject to several limitations. It is a retrospective study, not randomized or controlled. The decision to repair the lacerations was subjective because the lacerations were evaluated and managed by different physicians. Hence, there is a strong possibility of interobserver bias. Because of a small sample size, it may be difficult to make a definitive statement with regard to lack of association between cervical laceration and forceps and vacuum. We do not have information on these patients’ subsequent pregnancy. These long-term effects of cervical laceration on the nonpregnant cervix, future fertility, and subsequent labor course would make for an interesting study. In conclusion, both cerclage and induction of labor are significant risk factors for a cervical laceration. Although the risk of cervical laceration is small in the general population, this information makes diligent exploration of the cervix crucial, especially in cerclage and induction of labor patients. References 1 F.G. Cunningham In: F.G. Cunningham, N.F. Gant and K.J. Leveno et al., Editors, Obstetrical hemorrhage, McGraw-Hill, New York (2001), pp. 644–645. 2 K. Fahmy, A. el-Gazar, M. Sammour, M. Nosair and A. Salem, Postpartum colposcopy of the cervix: injury and healing, Int J Gynaecol Obstet 34 (1991), pp. 133–137. Abstract | Full Text + Links | PDF (436 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus 3 W.N. Kabiru, D. Jamieson, W. Graves and M. Lindsay, Trends in operative vaginal delivery rates and associated maternal complication rates in an inner-city hospital, Am J Obstet Gynecol 184 (2001), pp. 1112–1114. Abstract | PDF (67 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus 4 A.B. Caughey, P.L. Sandberg, M.G. Zlatnik, M.P. Thiet, J.T. Parer and R.K. Laros Jr, Forceps compared with vacuum: rates of neonatal and maternal morbidity, Obstet Gynecol 106 (2005) (5 Pt 1), pp. 908–912. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus 5 Y.E. Abdelhak, R. Aronov, H. Roque and B.K. Young, Management of cervical cerclage at term: remove the suture in labor?, J Perinat Med 28 (2000), pp. 453–457. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus 6 J.H. Harger, Comparison of success and morbidity in cervical cerclage procedures, Obstet Gynecol 56 (1980), pp. 543–548. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus 7 S.J. Ventura, J.A. Martin, S.C. Curtin, T.J. Mathews and National Center for Health Statistics, Births: final data for 1997, Natl Vital Stat Rep 47 (1999), pp. 1–96. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus 8 A.A. Orhue, J.A. Unuigbe, M. Ezimokhai and V.A. Ojo, Outcome of induced labor in 931 term pregnancies, Obstet Gynecol 64 (1984), pp. 108–114. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus Corresponding Author Contact InformationReprint requests: James N. Anasti, MD, St. Luke’s Hospital, 801 Ostrum St, Bethlehem, PA 18092 American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Volume 196, Issue 5, May 2007, Pages e17-e18 Result list | previous < 38 of 59 > next |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Êîëëåãè íå óäåðæàëñÿ....õî÷ó âìåøàòüñÿ â äèñêóññèþ!!! ×àñòûå ðàçðûâû øåéêè ìàòêè......ÄÀ ÝÒÎ ÍÀØÀ ÀÃÐÅÑÑÈß!!! ÷òî òóò ãîâîðèòü! - ÷òî òóò âàëèòü íà êàêèå òî âäðóã ðàçîì "ïðîõóäèâøèåñÿ" øåéêè ó æåíùèí...... Ñïàçìîëèòèêè.....ÇÀ×ÅÌ???? è äëÿ ÷åãî îíè??? íå ïîíèìàþ!!! çà ïîñëåäíèå 2 ãîäà íè îäíîãî ñïàçìîëèòèêà íå ñäåëàë!!! è íå íóæíû îíè (äåëàþ êîíå÷íî ïðîìåäîë, + ÑÀ, ÏÀ íî íå ÷àñòî, ïî÷òè òîëüêî ïðè ãåñòîçàõ), Ýñòðîãåíû..... íó êîëëëåååããèèèè... âåäü çíàåì ÷òî òîëêó íåò! çà÷åì?
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Óâàæàåìûå êîëëåãè! Âñå ìû çíàåì, ÷òî äëÿ âûðàáîòêè íîâûõ ðîññèéñêèõ ñòàíäàðòîâ íóæíû íå ïðîñòî äèñêóññèè, à ìíîãîöåíòðîâûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ, êîòîðûå ïîêà íèêòî îïëà÷èâàòü íå áóäåò. Ñîãëàñåí, ÷òî ìåòîäè÷åñêèå ðåêîìåíäàöèè êàôåäð - èñòî÷íèê íå íàäåæíûé, íî è îíè ìîãóò áûòü èñïîëüçîâàíû äëÿ íàðàáîòêè ñîáñòâåííîãî îïûòà. Íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ïðîáëåìà ðàçðûâîâ øåéêè ìàòêè êîìïëåêñíàÿ. Âî-ïåðâûõ, ñêîëüêî ìû íè òàëäû÷èì î íåîáõîäèìîñòè ôèçèîïñèõîïðîôèëàêòè÷åñêîé ïîäãîòîâêè ê ðîäàì è ñîâåðøåíñòâóåì ïðîãðàììû, "øêîëû ìàòåðåé" âñå æå íå ñòîëü ïîïóëÿðíû, êàê õîòåëîñü áû.  ðåçóëüòàòå æåíùèíû "âõîäÿò" â ðîäû àáñîëþòíî íå ïîäãîòîâëåííûìè (îíè è ÷èòàòü-òî î ðîäàõ íå ñòðåìÿòñÿ!). Êàê ñëåäñòâèå - ÷ðåçìåðíî ðàííåå ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîå íà÷àëî ïîòóã (ïðè âûñîêî ðàñïîëîæåííîé ãîëîâêå è íåïîëíîì îòêðûòèè øåéêè ìàòêè). Â-òðåòüèõ, ñîñòîÿíèå øååê áîëüøèíñòâà íàøèõ ïàöèåíòîê îñòàâëÿåò æåëàòü ëó÷øåãî. Íå ìîãó ñêàçàòü, ÷òî â æåíñêèõ êîíñóëüòàöèÿõ è êëèíèêàõ çëîóïîòðåáëÿþò àãðåññèâíûìè ìåòîäàìè ëå÷åíèÿ ïàòîëîãèè øåéêè, íî äàæå ñàìà íåëå÷åííàÿ ýðîçèÿ, ýêòðîïèîí ñïîñîáñòâóþò ðàçðûâàì â ðîäàõ. Â-òðåòüèõ, ÿòðîãåííûå ðàçðûâû íåòåðïåëèâûìè ìåäðàáîòíèêàìè. Âîéäèòå â ëþáóþ ïðåäðîäîâóþ è ïîñ÷èòàéòå êîëè÷åñòâî ïàöèåíòîê ñ èíôóçèÿìè óòåðîòîíèêîâ. Îêñèòîöèí, êîíå÷íî, - õîðîøèé ïîìîùíèê àêóøåðà, íî ìû íåðåäêî èì çëîóïîòðåáëÿåì. Îíî è ïîíÿòíî - ÷åì áûñòðåå "êëèåíò" ðîäîðàçðåøèòñÿ, òåì ñïîêîéíåå. Ïàëüöåâîå óñêîðåíèå ðàñêðûòèÿ øåéêè - èç òîé æå îïåðû. Íó è âàãèíàëüíûé îñìîòð àêóøåðêàìè. Ýòî ïðîñòî áè÷ "îïûòíûõ" àêóøåðîê. Åñëè îíà ïðîðàáîòàëà ëåò 15-20, òî ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî óìååò è çíàåò áîëüøå èíîãî âðà÷à. Òîëüêî âîò îòâåòñòâåííîñòü âñÿ ëîæèòñÿ íà äîêòîðà, à íèêàê íå íà ñðåäíèé ìåäïåðñîíàë. Òàê ÷òî æåñòîêî ïðåñåêàéòå âñå ïîïîëçíîâåíèÿ àêóøåðîê áåç âàøåãî âåäîìà ëåçòü PV. Äà è âàøåãî âåäîìà òîæå - ëó÷øå ëèøíèé ðàç ïîäîéòè ê ïàöèåíòêå è ñóíóòü äâà ïàëüöà, ÷åì ïîòîì ðàñõëåáûâàòü ïîëîâíèêîì.  îòíîøåíèè æå ñïàçìîëèòèêîâ ïîëíîñòüþ ñîãëàñåí - ïðè àäåêâàòíîé ðîäîâîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè îíè ëèøíèìè íåáóäóò.  áûòíîñòü ìîåé ðàáîòû â ã. Íåâèííîìûññêå Ñòàâðîïîëüñêîãî êðàÿ ìû ââîäèëè ñïàçìîëèòèêè êàæäûå 2 ÷àñà (ïàïàâåðèí, íî-øïà, ãàëèäîð, áàðàëãèí, ïðîìåäîë, àòðîïèí). Êàê ðåçóëüòàò - åäèíè÷íûå ñëó÷àè ðàçðûâîâ øåéêè ìàòêè.
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
* äàæå ñàìà íåëå÷åííàÿ ýðîçèÿ, ýêòðîïèîí ñïîñîáñòâóþò ðàçðûâàì â ðîäàõ..
*  îòíîøåíèè æå ñïàçìîëèòèêîâ ïîëíîñòüþ ñîãëàñåí - ïðè àäåêâàòíîé ðîäîâîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè îíè ëèøíèìè íåáóäóò.  áûòíîñòü ìîåé ðàáîòû â ã. Íåâèííîìûññêå Ñòàâðîïîëüñêîãî êðàÿ ìû ââîäèëè ñïàçìîëèòèêè êàæäûå 2 ÷àñà (ïàïàâåðèí, íî-øïà, ãàëèäîð, áàðàëãèí, ïðîìåäîë, àòðîïèí). Êàê ðåçóëüòàò - åäèíè÷íûå ñëó÷àè ðàçðûâîâ øåéêè ìàòêè. Íà îñíîâàíèè êàêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé îñíîâûâàþòñÿ âàøè âûâîäû? |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
À ÿ çà 8 ëåò ðàáîòû â øòàòàõ, ïðîâåäÿ ðîäîâ 450-500 íàâåðíîå, ðàçðûâîâ øåéêè ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå âèäåë, óøèâàë èõ íó îò ñèëû ðàç 10. Íèêàêèõ ñïàçìîëèòèêîâ îòðîäÿñü íå èñïîëüçîâàë - òîëüêî îêñèòîöèí ïî ïðîòîêîëó.
Íó è êîíöåïöèÿ ðàñòÿãèâàíèÿ øåéêè ìàòêè â ðîäàõ â øòàòàõ íå ñóùåñòâóåò. |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
|