American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 1997
Are obstetric interventions such as cervical ripening, induction of labor, amnioinfusion, or amniotomy associated with umbilical cord prolapse?
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roberts W E, Martin R W, Roach H H, Perry K G, Martin J N, Morrison J C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether intrapartum obstetric interventions are associated with umbilical cord prolapse.
STUDY DESIGN: A computer search identified patients who had intrapartum umbilical cord prolapse. Thirty-seven cases were identified between 1990 and 1994 (incidence of 1.85 per 1000). These women were randomly matched to control patients with intact membranes.
RESULTS: Patients with umbilical cord prolapse were delivered earlier (34.8 vs 37.1 weeks, p = 0.05). Otherwise, there were no differences between groups regarding the use of cervical ripening, incidence of labor induction, or the use of amnioinfusion and amniotomy. Although cervical dilatation and station were similar between groups at the time of admission, women with umbilical cord prolapse did not have as much descent of the presenting part associated with cervical dilatation and progressive labor compared with control patients.
CONCLUSION: By themselves, obstetric interventions of cervical ripening, labor induction, amnioinfusion, and amniotomy do not increase the likelihood that a patient will have umbilical cord prolapse.
STUDY DESIGN: A computer search identified patients who had intrapartum umbilical cord prolapse. Thirty-seven cases were identified between 1990 and 1994 (incidence of 1.85 per 1000). These women were randomly matched to control patients with intact membranes.
RESULTS: Patients with umbilical cord prolapse were delivered earlier (34.8 vs 37.1 weeks, p = 0.05). Otherwise, there were no differences between groups regarding the use of cervical ripening, incidence of labor induction, or the use of amnioinfusion and amniotomy. Although cervical dilatation and station were similar between groups at the time of admission, women with umbilical cord prolapse did not have as much descent of the presenting part associated with cervical dilatation and progressive labor compared with control patients.
CONCLUSION: By themselves, obstetric interventions of cervical ripening, labor induction, amnioinfusion, and amniotomy do not increase the likelihood that a patient will have umbilical cord prolapse.