无痛分娩和常规分娩分娩质量的比较分析

目的分析比较无痛分娩和常规分娩的分娩质量。方法选取本院2008年2月～2010年3月收治的166例健康产妇,进行随机平均分组,观察组83例,采用低浓度罗哌卡因联合太尼硬膜外阻滞法行无痛分娩;对照组83例．采取临床非药物性常规分娩镇痛方法。比较两组孕妇的镇痛有效率、分娩方式、失血量、住院时间及新生儿健康情况等。分析两种方法的利弊。结果观察组剖宫产14例,出现伤口感染2例,住院时间为（2．5±0．6）d,胎儿窒息2例,产程（6．7±2．9）h,均少于对照组,两组比较,差异有统计学意义;两组产妇的分娩失血量差异无统计学意义。结论较常规分娩而言,无痛分娩对孕妇的损伤和对胎儿发育的影响较小,且生产时痛苦小,产程短,感染率低,可降低剖宫产率,具有良好的临床效果,可以通过产前教育等方式在产妇中推广。

Comparative analysis of the parturition quality between painless parturition and normal parturition

Objective To compare the parturition quality of painless parturition and normal parturition. Methods One hundred and sixty-six cases of healthy parturients from February 2008 to March 2010 in our hospital were selected and randomly divided into observation group and control group, with 83 cases in each group, observation group was given low concentration of ropivaeaine combined with fentanyl in epidural anesthesia for painless parturition, and con- trol group was given non-drug routine parturition analgesia. The analgesic efficiency, mode of delivery, blood loss, hos- pital stay and neonatal health status of pregnant women in two groups were compared, and the advantages and disad- vantages of two methods were analyzed. Results Two cases appeared wound infection among 14 cases of cesarean sec- tion in observation group, the hospitalization time was （2.5_＋0.6） d, and 2 cases appeared fetal asphyxia, the production process was （6.7_＋2.9）h, and all these indexes were better than control group, there was significant difference between two groups; the blood loss of maternal birth in two groups was not significantly different. Conclusion Compared with normal parturition, painless parturition has less influence on the pregnant women＇s injury and fetal growth, and has less pain, shorter parturition course, low infection rate, and it can reduce the rate of cesarean section, it has good clin- ical effect, and can be promoted by prenatal education in parturients.