International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2006
Finger-assisted stretching technique for cesarean section.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Song S H, Oh M J, Kim T, Hur J Y, Saw H S, Park Y K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of two cesarean section methods, the finger-assisted stretching technique (FAST), based on a modified Joel-Cohen method, with the traditional technique.
METHODS: A retrospective review of the records of 416 women who underwent cesarean sections at Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea, between May 1993 and December 2001 was performed. Of the 416 women, 283 underwent cesarean sections with FAST and 133 with the traditional technique.
RESULTS: Operative time was significantly shorter with FAST (15.3 vs. 42.6 min, P<.05), and FAST was associated with lower blood loss (601 vs. 928 mL, P<.05) and shorter hospital stay (3.7 vs. 6.5 days, P<.05). There were no significant differences in wound infection, voiding difficulty, and postoperative adhesions between the two methods.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that FAST may be the better technique.
METHODS: A retrospective review of the records of 416 women who underwent cesarean sections at Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea, between May 1993 and December 2001 was performed. Of the 416 women, 283 underwent cesarean sections with FAST and 133 with the traditional technique.
RESULTS: Operative time was significantly shorter with FAST (15.3 vs. 42.6 min, P<.05), and FAST was associated with lower blood loss (601 vs. 928 mL, P<.05) and shorter hospital stay (3.7 vs. 6.5 days, P<.05). There were no significant differences in wound infection, voiding difficulty, and postoperative adhesions between the two methods.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that FAST may be the better technique.