新产程模式下剖宫产和产钳术对持续性枕后位难产孕妇分娩结局的评估

目的：探索新产程模式下剖宫产和产钳术对持续性枕后位难产孕妇分娩结局的评估。方法:收集2017年至2020年间于浙江省湖州市妇幼保健院收住入院的103例持续性枕后位难产孕妇, 其中以产钳分娩的60例孕妇为研究组，53例以剖宫产术分娩的孕妇为对照组，评估其分娩结局，分析两种分娩方式对孕产妇的影响。采用χ2 检验比较剖宫产及产钳分娩两组的新生儿窒息、产后出血、产时、产后感染、软产道裂伤（包括会阴III度裂伤、阴道裂伤、宫颈裂伤）、切口预后不良的差异。结果：研究组产后出血、产时发热、产后发热发生率[分别为1.66%（1/60）、1.66%（1/60）、3.33%(2/60），χ2 值分别为（4.514 和5.698、4.826，P值分别为 0.040 和 0.020、0.030）]，明显低于对照组[分别为11.32%（6/53）、13.20%（7/53）、15.09%(8/53）]，但是研究组会阴III度裂伤、宫颈裂伤、阴道裂伤、发生率为分别为[15.00%（9/60）、13.33%（8/60））、（11.66%（7/60）），明显高于对照组（1.88%（1/53）、1.88%（1/53）、3.77%（2/53））]，差异有统计学意义（P值均＜0.05）。但研究组的新生儿窒息发生率及切口预后不良的比例分别为[5（8.33%）、4（6.66%）]，略低于对照组[（6（11.32%）、4（7.54%）]，差异无统计学意义（χ2值分别为0.286、0.233，P 值均＞0.05）。结论：新产程标准下持续性枕后位难产孕妇选择产钳分娩可明显降低产时、产后感染及产后出血的发生率，但软产道裂伤发生率较高，差异有统计学意义。所以持续性枕后位难产孕妇选择产钳分娩是相对比较安全的分娩方式，但同时需要注意软产道裂伤的发生。     

医药院校大学生媒介素养教育探究

在现代传媒背景下，媒介素养水平高低直接影响着医药专业人才的培养质量和未来我国医药卫生事业发展。本文探讨国内外媒介素养教育开展情况，分析医药院校大学生媒介素养教育的必要性，提出了在医药院校加强媒介素养教育的新思路。     

经皮电刺激联合导乐镇痛对分娩结局的影响及安全性分析

目的 探讨经皮电刺激联合导乐分娩镇痛对分娩结局的影响及安全性。方法 选择160例在我院住院待产的产妇作为研究对象,随机将其分为观察组与对照组,每组各80例;其中对照组予导乐分娩镇痛,观察组给予经皮电刺激联合导乐分娩镇痛。观察比较两组的VAS评分、产程时间、产后出血、剖宫产率、产妇满意度、新生儿情况、不良反应发生情况等。结果 与镇痛前比较,观察组镇痛后各时间段VAS评分降低,P＜0.05;与对照组比较,观察组的产后2 h出血量、剖宫产率降低,产妇满意度提高,P＜0.05。结论 经皮电刺激联合导乐镇痛可减轻产妇痛苦,降低剖宫产率,减少产后出血,提高产妇满意度,且无明显不良反应,值得在临床上推广应用。     

重症肌无力患者和家属的健康素养对健康教育的影响

目的通过测评重症肌无力(MG)患者及家属的健康素养,分析影响健康素养的因素以及健康素养对患者和家属掌握MG健康教育内容的意义。方法纳入106例MG患者及101名家属,采用国际公认的健康素养问卷测评他们的健康素养。采用自行设计的MG健康教育内容,随机对被调查者采用医生讲述或患者自行阅读的宣教方式,采用相应的问卷评价患者和家属对健康教育内容的掌握情况。采用独立样本t检验、秩和检验和卡方检验进行单因素分析,采用Logistic回归进行多因素分析。结果患者和家属健康素养为优的比例无统计学差异(P>0.05)。患者和家属健康素养优者中教育程度高者比例均高于健康素养差者(P<0.05,P<0.01)。患者中健康教育得分高的比例高于家属(P<0.01)。患者健康教育得分高者中年轻者比例,家属健康教育得分高者中年轻者和教育程度高者比例均高于健康教育得分低者(均P<0.01)。多因素分析发现,教育程度是影响患者(OR=3.12,P=0.045)和家属(OR=8.82,P=0.001)健康素养的独立影响因素,患者中年龄(OR=7.68,P=0.001)而家属中教育程度(OR=3.25,P=0.013)是健康教育得分的独立影响因素。结论教育程度既是MG患者和家属健康素养的决定因素又是健康教育效果的重要影响因素,年龄也是健康教育效果的重要影响因素,在制定个体化的MG教育方案时需要考虑。     

Trial of Labor After Cesarean in Adolescents – A Multicenter Study

Study ObjectiveData regarding trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) among young women are limited. The aim of this study was to assess the TOLAC success rate and its related factors among adolescent women who had never delivered vaginally.DesignA multicenter retrospective cohort study of all adolescent women aged ≤21 years with a history of 1 previous cesarean delivery, who delivered in 2 tertiary medical centers during 2007-2019. Women were allocated to 2 groups: 1) women who underwent TOLAC, and 2) women who had a repeat cesarean delivery with no trial of labor. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups. In addition, perinatal outcomes were compared between women with successful and unsuccessful TOLAC.ResultsThe study cohort included 167 women who had a previous caesarean delivery; 117 underwent TOLAC and 50 underwent a repeat cesarean delivery with no trial of labor. Neonatal birthweight (median 2937 vs 3170 g, P = .03) and gestational age at delivery (median 38 weeks vs 39, P = .009) were lower in the repeat cesarean group as compared to those undergoing TOLAC. Overall, 97 of 117 participants (83%) had a successful TOLAC. Failed TOLAC was associated low birthweight as compared to successful TOLAC (5 [25%] vs 7 [7%], odds ratio [OR] 4.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-15.3, P = .02), and birthweight difference between current and previous deliveries was higher in the failed TOLAC group (median 315 vs 197 g, P = .04). Rates of neonatal Apgar score at 1 minute < 7 and of neonatal intensive care unit admission were higher in the TOLAC failure group (4 [20%] vs 5 [5%], OR 4.6, 95% CI 1.1-19.0, P = .03, and 4 [20%] vs 4 [4%], OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.3-25.6, P = .02), respectively). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, only low birthweight was independently associated with TOLAC failure (adjusted OR 9.9, 95% CI 2.1-45.4, P = .003). Two cases of uterine rupture occurred in the no trial of labor group, whereas none were encountered in participants undergoing TOLAC.ConclusionsTOLAC in adolescent women who had never delivered vaginally is associated with a relatively high success rate.