ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. MethodsWe searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), PubMed, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data for randomized controlled trials on combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section up to October 2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2.9 software. ResultsA total of 9 studies containing 616 delivery women were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:compared with epidural anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia was superior in the time of sensory blockade to T4 (MD=-7.38, 95%CI-9.54 to-5.23, P < 0.000 01), muscle relaxation (OR=6.09, 95%CI 2.65 to 13.97, P < 0.000 1), and recovery of motor block (MD=-41.57, 95%CI-58.98 to-24.17, P < 0.000 01). Compare with spinal anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia was superior in lowering the incidence of low blood pressure (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.81, P=0.006). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that combined spinal-epidural anesthesia could increase the effectiveness and safety of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section.
ObjectiveTo discuss the clinical characteristics, treatment and prevention of abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE). MethodsA retrospective analysis of 295 cases of AWE from February 2007 to August 2011 in our hospital was performed. ResultsAll of the patients had abdominal operations before and 99% of them had a history of caesarean section. The mean age of the patients was (31.55±4.52) years old. The average size of the mass was (2.66±1.12) cm, significantly larger than the estimation of ultrasonography before operation which was (1.91±0.83) cm (P<0.001). No relapse was discovered five months to three years after the operation. ConclusionIt is easy to diagnose abdominal wall endometriosis through medical history, clinical characteristics, physical signs and ultrasonic assessment. The prevention of AWE is very important. Operation is still the best treatment for AWE.
Objective To review the adverse event of hysterectomy caused by postoperative infection after cesarean section, formulate prevention and control strategies in combination with risk assessment tools, promote the standardization of perioperative management, reduce the medical burden on pregnant women, and improve patient satisfaction. Methods The two adverse events of hysterectomy caused by postoperative infection after cesarean section that occurred in the obstetrics ward between October and November 2024 were selected as the research objects. A root cause analysis and risk assessment team composed of personnel from multiple departments was established. Through interviews, observations, and data review, the potential failure modes and causes were sorted out. The risk priority number (RPN) was calculated to determine the high-risk factors. Improvement strategies were formulated and implemented. After two-month implementation, the RPN scores and the compliance of various measures before and after the implementation were compared. Results Before the improvement, the total RPN of the healthcare failure mode and effects analysis was 367.8. When rechecked in January 2025, the total RPN after the improvement dropped to 105.7, and no serious adverse events occurred again. The compliance and passing rates of various operations significantly increased: the intervention rate for maternal malnutrition rose from 17.5% to 48.6%, the passing rate of appropriate timing for prophylactic use of antimicrobial agents before surgery increased from 50.5% to 81.0%, the compliance rate of scrubbing the vagina with disinfectant before surgery increased from 15.0% to 60.0%, the implementation rate of standardized skin disinfection during surgery rose from 66.7% to 95.2%, the passing rate of aseptic techniques and hand hygiene operations during surgery increased from 75.0% to 95.2%, and the timely submission rate of specimens from infected patients increased from 29.4% to 47.6%, and all these differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion The combination of healthcare failure mode and effect analysis and root cause analysis can effectively improve adverse events during the perioperative period, optimize the perioperative management of cesarean section, and reduce the risk of infection.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of methotrexate perfusion combined with interventional treatment and the traditional treatment with methotrexate and mifepristone for cesarean scar pregnancy. MethodA total of 589 patients diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy after surgery between January 2012 and March 2015 in our hospital were selected to be our study subjects. The patients were informed of the two kinds of treatment, and based on their own will, they were arranged into corresponding groups. Group A had 234 patients who were willing to undergo the conventional therapy:intramuscular injection of methotrexate (20 mg, once per day for 5 days); oral mifepristone (50 mg once per day for 3 to 5 days); and the continuation of drugs was determined by local pregnancy tissue blood flow on B ultrasound and liver function of the patients. Group B had 255 patients who selected uterine artery perfusion and arterial embolism. There was no significant difference in terms of age, serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) and uterine incision gestation sac size between the two groups of patients (P>0.05). Then we compared the treatment effect between the two groups. ResultsThe differences in the amount of bleeding, the time of blood HCG dropped to normal, and hospitalization duration between the two groups were significant (P<0.05), while in the rate of hysterectomy, drug-induced liver injury were not (P<0.05). ConclusionsMethotrexate perfusion combined with interventional treatment is better than the traditional treatment with methotrexate and mifepristone for cesarean scar pregnancy in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.
ObjectiveTo investigate the value of uterine compression suture through laparoscopy in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). MethodsA random controlled study was conducted on 85 CSP patients diagnosed between September 2013 and December 2014. The patients were randomly divided into control group (n=43) and study group (n=42). The control group received routine evacuation under laparoscopy, while the study group received routine evaluation under laparoscopy combined with uterine compression suture. The efficacy of the two treatments were compared and analyzed. ResultsThe operation time of the control group and the study group was (36.6±17.7) and (45.6±14.8) minutes, respectively. Total amount of bleeding during and after the operation was (207.9±165.8) and (96.1±29.0) mL for the two groups of patients, and the above differences were statistically significant (P＜0.05). There was no significant difference in the indicators of anal exhaust time, hospitalization stay, blood β-human chorionic gonadotrophin clearance time, and menstruation recovery time between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionUterine compression suture through laparoscopy is a safe and reliable method to reduce the bleeding of CSP, which is easy to perform and worthy of promotion.
【作者简介】〖KG2〗〖HTSS〗蒋青(1963-),女,四川遂宁人,主管护师,硕士,Email:jq0987@yahoo.cn
ObjectiveTo compare the anesthetic potency and influence on maternal hemodynamics among spinal anesthesia (SA), epidural anesthesia (EA) and combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for women undergoing cesarean sections. MethodsA total of 180 singleton term nulliparous pregnancies of American Sociaty of Anethesiologists physical status Ⅰor Ⅱ for cesarean sections in Guangyuan Central Hospital from January to December 2012 were allocated into three groups using the method of random number table. Patients in group SA received SA (n=60), group EA underwent EA (n=60) and patients in group CSEA accepted CSEA (n=60). Patients wderwent punere all placed in left lateral position. Group EA patients unctures at the L1-2 interspace and the volume of carbonated lidocaine used initially was 12-15 mL. Group SA and CSEA accepted the anesthesia at either L2-3 or L3-4 interspace. The volume for group SA was 0.75% bupivacaine 1.2 mL with 10% glucose solution 1 mL, and for group CSEA was 0.5% bupivacaine 1.4 mL with 10% glucose solution 0.8 mL. A catheter was inserted into the epidural space for 3-4 cm after spinal needle exit so as to add additional epidural medication according to the block level and the level of anesthesia subsidence. The values of the basis of blood pressure and heart rate, the lowest blood pressure and heart rate, umbilical venous blood gas, start effect and induction time of anesthesia and the highest block level of anesthesia were record. ResultsThere were statistically significant differences in terms of start effect time of anesthesia among the three groups (F=24.642, P<0.001). The start effect time of anesthesia in group SA and CSEA was significantly shorter than that in group EA (t=8.076, 7.996; P<0.05). The induction time of anesthesia in group SA was significantly shorter than those in group EA and CSEA (P<0.05). The lowest blood pressure and heart rate in group SA and CSEA were significantly lower than the values of basis (P<0.05). The lowest blood pressure and heart rate in group SA was significantly lower than that in group EA (P<0.05). The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia in group SA and CSEA was significantly higher than that in group EA (P<0.05). The block level of anesthesia in the three groups were at thoracic 8.12±1.22, 8.36±1.88 and 8.52±1.92 respectively, and there was no significant difference among the three groups (F=0.081, P=0.923). ConclusionEA and CSEA surpass SA in the choice of neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean sections, and 1.73% carbonated lidocaine for EA can improve anesthetic potency and better maintain relatively stable hemodynamic indexes.
Objective To systemically review the clinical application of esketamine for postoperative analgesia in cesarean section. Methods Databases including CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on esketamine in cesarean section from inception to January 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Results A total of 16 RCTs involving 1 715 cesarean section patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that esketamine decreased the patients’ visual analog scale scores after surgery (MD=−0.67, 95%CI −0.86 to −0.49, P<0.000 01) and reduced the need for analgesics for 48 hours after surgery (MD=−2.38, 95%CI −3.15 to −1.62, P<0.000 01) compared with the control drugs (such as opioids, ropivacaine, and normal saline), without increasing adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting (RR=0.84, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.12, P=0.23), hallucinations (RR=3.00, 95%CI 0.37 to 24.43, P=0.30), drowsiness (RR=1.49, 95%CI 0.16 to 13.99, P=0.73), itching (RR=1.05, 95%CI 0.79 to 1.41, P=0.72), hypotension (RR=0.31, 95%CI 0.04 to 2.40, P=0.26), bradycardia (RR=0.40, 95%CI 0.01 to 11.24, P=0.59), and dizziness (RR=2.24, 95%CI 0.63 to 7.94, P=0.21). Compared with the control drugs, esketamine extended the operation time (MD=2.23, 95%CI 1.73 to 2.74, P<0.000 01), accelerated heart rate (MD=1.31, 95%CI 0.25 to 2.37, P=0.02), and increased the mean arterial pressure (MD=3.88, 95%CI 0.19 to 7.56, P=0.04) during surgery. Additionally, esketamine improved the Apgar score of neonates (MD=0.45, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.63, P<0.000 01) and the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale score of mothers (MD=−1.12, 95%CI −1.87 to −0.55, P=0.000 3), having no effects on the cord blood pH of neonates (MD=0.03, 95%CI −0.01 to 0.07, P=0.14). Conclusion Esketamine has certain advantages when used for postoperative analgesia in cesarean section. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to further verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo compare the curative effect of three therapeutic strategies for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). MethodsBetween January 2009 and December 2013, 208 patients with CSP underwent intramuscular methotrexate alone (group A, n=72), transvaginal ultrasound monitoring after embryo sac strangulation after injection of methotrexate (group B, n=70) and uterine arterial chemoembolization therapy monitoring after hysteroscopy surgery (group C, n=66). We studied their clinical data retrospectively. The preoperative treatment interval, the hospitalization days, intraoperative bleeding, time of blood β-HCG to normal level and hospitalization costs were compared between the groups. ResultsThe preoperative treatment interval, hospitalization days, intraoperative bleeding, and time of blood β-HCG to normal level of group C were significantly better than those of group A and B (P<0.05), while the hospitalization cost of the three groups were not statistically signficant (P>0.05). ConclusionAs a treatment for CSP, uterine artery chemoembolization is a safe and effective method, and it has the advantages of short hospitalization time, less intraoperative bleeding and high fertility preservation. It is worth application in clinical medicine.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy of maternal body temperature preservation during caesarean section. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2015), WanFang Data, CBM and CNKI were searched from inception to July 2015 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of body temperature preservation in patients with caesarean delivery. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software. Results A total of 15 RCTs involving 1 331 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that patients in the temperature preservation group had a smaller body temperature variation (MD= –0.22, 95%CI –0.32 to –0.13, P < 0.000 01) and a lower incidence of shivering (RR=0.53, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.67, P < 0.000 01) than patients in the control group. There were no statistical differences between the two groups in blood loss (MD= –13.77, 95%CI –33.95 to 6.42, P=0.18) and newborn Apgar score (MD=0.12, 95%CI –0.37 to 0.6, P=0.64). Conclusions Current evidence shows that body temperature preservation measures can better protect patients with caesarean delivery. Specifically, body temperature preservation measures could reduce patients’ body temperature variation and incidence of shivering but had no effect on blood loss and newborn Apgar score. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.