对有过两次剖腹产史的孕妇在分娩阶段进行产道成形术的经验

封面


如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅或者付费存取

详细

目标。本研究的目的是评估对有过两次剖腹产史的产妇在腹部分娩阶段进行子宫成形术的疗效。

材料与方法。2020-2022年，对150名孕妇进行了检查。患者被分为三组：第一组包括有过一次剖腹产手术史的孕妇，第二组包括有过两次手术史的孕妇。在这些组别中，都是在分娩阶段进行了子宫成形术。第三组（对照组）是有两次剖腹产史的孕妇，她们在没有切除下段瘢痕组织的情况下进行了手术分娩。根据专利“两次或两次以上剖腹产妇女在手术分娩过程中进行子宫成形术的方法”，在胎儿取出前进行了子宫成形术，胎儿膀胱完好无损。为了研究瘢痕厚度的动态变化，所有产妇分别在产后第三天和产后6个月接受了2小时的超声检查。

结果。在再次剖腹产手术中切除子宫瘢痕区域可改善子宫内膜残余厚度，这是在术后6个月超声检查中确定的。

结论。这项技术可以在两次剖腹产后在子宫上形成功能完整的瘢痕。

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

Kristina V. Tarasova

Bashkir State Medical University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: krisval2017@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9807-5945

Graduate Student

俄罗斯联邦, Ufa

Ilnur I. Musin

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: ilnur-musin@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5520-5845

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Assistant Professor

俄罗斯联邦, Ufa

Alfiya G. Yaschuk

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: alfiya_galimovna@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2645-1662

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

俄罗斯联邦, Ufa

Edvard А. Berg

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: aig.eaberg@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2028-7796

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Assistant Professor

俄罗斯联邦, Ufa

Svetlana F. Nasyrova

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: ufa863@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2313-7232

Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Assistant Professor

俄罗斯联邦, Ufa

Evgenii M. Gareev

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: gem46@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6561-0892

PhD (Biology), Associate Professor

俄罗斯联邦, Ufa

参考

  1. Ye J, Betrán AP, Guerrero Vela M, et al. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. Birth. 2014;41(3):237–244. doi: 10.1111/birt.12104
  2. Tulandi T, Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6):893–902. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.020
  3. Zemskova NYu, Chechneva MA, Petrukhin VA, Lukashenko SYu. Ultrasound examination of the cesarean scar in the prognosis of pregnancy outcome. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2020;(10):99–104 EDN: GUEFJI doi: 10.18565/aig.2020.10.99-104
  4. Vuchenovich YuD, Novikova VA, Kostin IN, Radzinskiy VE. Risk of uterine rupture during a trial of vaginal labor after cesarean. Obstetrics and gynecology. News. Views. Education. 2019;7(S):93–100. EDN: CDMMJV doi: 10.24411/2303-9698-2019-13913
  5. Sidorova TA, Martynov SA. Risk factors and mechanisms of uterine scar defects formation after caesarean section: a review. Gynecology. 2022;24(1):11–17. EDN: CXYUQG doi: 10.26442/20795696.2022.1.201356
  6. Postoperative scar on the uterus, requiring the provision of medical care to the mother during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period: clinical recommendations of the Russian Federation, 2021. (In Russ.)
  7. Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):262.e1–262.e2628. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.035.
  8. Yaman Tunc S, Agacayak E, Sak S, et al. Multiple repeat caesarean deliveries: do they increase maternal and neonatal morbidity? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(6):739–744. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1183638
  9. Logutova LS, Buyanova SN, Gridchik AL. Vaginal delivery or cesarean section: an obstetrician’s informed choice. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2020;(7):135–142. EDN: KGWHLP doi: 10.18565/aig.2020.7.135-142.
  10. Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, et al. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(2):132–139. doi: 10.1002/uog.12479
  11. Einerson BD, Comstock J, Silver RM, et al. Placenta accreta spectrum disorder: uterine dehiscence, not placental invasion. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(5):1104–1111. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003793
  12. Barinov SV, Bindyuk AV, Ralko VV, et al. On delivery in pregnant women with a uterine scar. Russian bulletin of obstetrician-gynecologist. 2015;15(4):29–33. EDN: SYLZJG
  13. Strizhakov AN, Ignatko IV, Churganova AA, Aslanov AG. An innovative approach to studying the state of the uterine scar after cesarean section on the basis of a comparative study. Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2021;76(5):429–435. EDN: XIWDHZ doi: 10.15690/vramn1291
  14. Polyanin DV, Mikhelson AA, Melkozerova OA, Lukianova KD. Discussion issues of incompetent uterine scar in the era of the caesarian section epidemic. Ural Medical Journal. 2019;(5):17–23. EDN: RTCDFK doi: 10.25694/URMJ.2019.05.30
  15. Yametova NM, Tskhay VB, Domracheva MY. Repeated cesarean section surgery in women with two or more scars on the uterus. Medical Herald of The South of Russia. 2021;12(3):86–91. EDN: PPQPRW doi: 10.21886/2219-8075-2021-12-3-86-91
  16. Malysheva AA, Matukhin VI, Reznik VA. Experience of the surgical correction of the scar on the uterus after cesarian section at the pre-conceptional preparation. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2018;24(6):46–50. EDN: VTIZGA doi: 10.17116/repro20182406146
  17. Balashova KhB, Shcherbakova LN, Panina OB, Bugerenko AE. Laparoscopic metroplasty for uterine scar defect after cesarean section. Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology. 2022;21(4):126–132. EDN: PQOWZF doi: 10.20953/1726-16782022-4-126-132
  18. Kalinkina OB, Тezikov YuV, Lipatov IS, et al. True ingrowth of a placenta. Practical Medicine. 2020;18(2):71–73. EDN: QVNPZV
  19. Shmakov RG, Pirogova MM, Vasilchenko ON, et al. Surgery tactics for placenta increta with different depths of invasion. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2020;(1):78–82. EDN: BVNJVC doi: 10.18565/aig.2020.1.78-82
  20. Ralnikova AYu, Bezhenar VF, Arakelyan BV, Gabelova KA. Organ-sparing surgery in placenta praevia and accreta (clinical observation). Obstetrics and Gynaecology of St. Petersburg. 2019;(3–4):66–70. EDN: LXSPIJ
  21. Kurtser MA, Breslav IYu, Barykina OP. Uterine scar dehiscence following caesarean section. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2022;(2):59–64. EDN: FIMWTA doi: 10.18565/aig.2022.2.59-64
  22. Patent RUS № 2790787. Bul. № 7. Iashchuk AG, Kudriashova KV, Musin II. Method of metroplasty during an operative delivery in women with two or more caesarean sections. Date of filing: 29.07.2022; Date of publication: 28.02.2023.
  23. Baranovskaya EI. Formation of isthmocele after caesarean section. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2023;23(5):32–37. EDN: SNSCME doi: 10.17116/rosakush20232305132

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载
2. Fig. 1. Scar thickness before delivery in three groups: the abscissa axis shows the numbers of the groups: 1, one CS with metroplasty; 2, two CSs and metroplasty; 3, two CSs without metroplasty (control). On the ordinate axis, the scar thickness in mm.

下载 (22KB)
索引源数据
3. Fig. 2. Sequential changes in the scar thickness at different terms after CS in patients with one CS and metroplasty (group 1), with two CSs and metroplasty (group 2), and with two CSs without metroplasty (group 3, control). On the ordinate axis, scar thickness in mm.

下载 (33KB)
索引源数据
4. Fig. 3. Mean blood loss in the three groups: the abscissa axis shows the group numbers: 1, one CS with metroplasty; 2, two CSs and metroplasty; and 3, two CSs without metroplasty (control). The ordinate axis presents the blood loss in mm³. CI, confidence interval; SE, standard errors of mean values.

下载 (17KB)
索引源数据

版权所有 © Eco-Vector, 2024


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: ПИ № ФС 77 - 86335 от 11.12.2023 г.  
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80633 от 15.03.2021 г.