首页> 外文OA文献 >Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons
【2h】

Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons

机译:剖腹产与阴道分娩对单胎早产的影响

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background Planned caesarean delivery for women thought be in preterm labour may be protective for baby, but could also be quite traumatic for both mother and baby. The optimal mode of delivery of preterm babies for both cephalic and breech presentation remains, therefore, controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth for women in preterm labour. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (5 August 2013). Selection criteria Randomised trials comparing a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery for preterm birth. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy. Main results We included six studies (involving 122 women) but only four studies (involving only 116 women) contributed data to the analyses. Infant There were very little data of relevance to the three main (primary) outcomes considered in this review: There was no significant difference between planned immediate caesarean section and planned vaginal delivery with respect to birth injury to infant (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95%, confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 5.62; one trial, 38 women) or birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women). The only cases of birth trauma were a laceration of the buttock in a baby who was delivered by caesarean section and mild bruising in another allocated to the group delivered vaginally. The difference between the two groups with regard to perinatal deaths was not significant (0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.14; three trials, 89 women) and there were no data specifically relating to neonatal admission to special care and/or intensive care unit. There was also no difference between the caesarean or vaginal delivery groups in terms of markers of possible birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women) or Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.60; four trials, 115 women) and no difference in attempts at breastfeeding (RR 1.40, 95% 0.11 to 17.45; one trial, 12 women). There was also no difference in neonatal fitting/seizures (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.32; three trials, 77 women), hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 82.01;one trial, 12 women) or respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.10; three trials, 103 women). There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to meconium aspiration. There was also no significant difference between the two groups for abnormal follow-up in childhood (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.22; one trial, 38 women) or delivery less than seven days after entry (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24; two trials, 51 women). Mother There were no data reported on maternal admissions to intensive care. However, there were seven cases of major maternal postpartum complications in the group allocated to planned immediate caesarean section and none in the group randomised to vaginal delivery (RR 7.21, 95% CI 1.37 to 38.08; four trials, 116 women). There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to maternal satisfaction (postnatal). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to postpartum haemorrhage. A number of non-prespecified secondary outcomes were also considered in the analyses. There was a significant advantage for women in the vaginal delivery group with respect to maternal puerperal pyrexia (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.18 to 7.53; three trials, 89 women) and other maternal infection (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 6.78; three trials, 103 women), but no significant differences in wound infection (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.18 to 7.70; three trials, 103 women), maternal stay more than 10 days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.65; three trials, 78 women) or the need for blood transfusion (results not estimable). Authors' conclusions There is not enough evidence to evaluate the use of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery for preterm babies. Further studies are needed in this area, but recruitment is proving difficult.
机译:背景技术计划中的早产妇女剖腹产可能对婴儿有保护作用,但对母亲和婴儿都可能造成很大的创伤。因此,对于头颅和臀位表现的早产婴儿的最佳分娩方式仍然存在争议。目的评估有计划的立即剖腹产与有计划的阴道分娩对早产妇女的政策效果。搜索方法我们搜索了Cochrane妊娠和分娩组的试验登记册(2013年8月5日)。选择标准随机试验比较了计划性立即剖腹产与计划性早产的阴道分娩策略。数据收集和分析两名评价作者独立评估了纳入试验。两位评论作者独立提取数据并评估偏见风险。检查数据的准确性。主要结果我们纳入了六项研究(涉及122名妇女),但只有四项研究(仅涉及116名妇女)为分析提供了数据。婴儿本评价中考虑的与三项主要(主要)结果相关的数据很少:就婴儿出生受伤而言,计划剖腹产和计划分娩之间无显着差异(风险比(RR)0.56, 95%,置信区间(CI)0.05至5.62;一项试验,38名妇女)或出生窒息(RR 1.63,95%CI 0.84至3.14;一项试验,12名妇女)。唯一的出生创伤病例是通过剖腹产分娩的婴儿的臀部裂伤,以及另外一个经阴道分娩的婴儿的轻度瘀伤。两组在围产期死亡方面的差异不显着(0.29,95%CI 0.07至1.14;三项试验,89名妇女),也没有与新生儿入院特殊护理和/或重症监护室相关的数据。剖宫产或阴道分娩组之间的差异也无统计学差异(可能出生窒息)(RR 1.63,95%CI 0.84至3.14;一项试验,12名妇女)或Apgar在五分钟时得分低于7(RR 0.83, 95%CI为0.43至1.60;四项试验为115位女性),母乳喂养尝试的差异无统计学意义(RR 1.40,95%0.11至17.45;一项试验为12位女性)。新生儿适应/惊厥(RR 0.22,95%CI 0.01至4.32;三项试验,77名妇女),低氧缺血性脑病(RR 4.00,95%CI 0.20至82.01;一项试验,12名妇女)或呼吸系统也无差异。窘迫综合征(RR 0.55,95%CI 0.27 to 1.10;三项试验,103名女性)。在试验中没有报告专门涉及胎粪吸入的数据。两组在儿童期的异常随访(RR 0.65,95%CI 0.19至2.22;一项试验,38名女性)或分娩后少于7天分娩(RR 0.95,95%CI 0.73)之间也没有显着差异。至1.24;两次审判,共有51名女性)。母亲没有关于重症监护产妇入院的数据。但是,该组中有7例主要的产妇产后合并症病例被分配到计划中的立即剖腹产,而无一组随机分配给阴道分娩(RR 7.21,95%CI 1.37至38.08;四项试验,116名妇女)。在试验中,没有报告专门涉及产妇满意度(产后)的数据。两组在产后出血方面无显着差异。在分析中还考虑了许多未预先确定的次要结局。相对于产妇产后发热(RR 2.98,95%CI 1.18至7.53;三项试验,89名妇女)和其他孕产妇感染(RR 2.63,95%CI 1.02至6.78;阴道分娩组中的妇女)有显着优势。 3项试验(103名女性),但伤口感染无显着差异(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.18至7.70; 3项试验,103名女性),产妇停留超过10天(RR 1.27,95%CI 0.35至4.65; 3试验,有78名妇女)或需要输血(结果不可估计)。作者的结论没有足够的证据来评估早产儿计划剖腹产分娩策略的使用。在这一领域需要进一步的研究,但事实证明招募工作很困难。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号