Does uterine gauze packing increase the risk of puerperal morbidity in the management of postpartum hemorrhage during caesarean section: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL International journal of clinical and experimental medicine Pub Date : 2015-08-15 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01
Yu-Na Guo, Jue Ma, Xiao-Jin Wang, Bing-Shun Wang
{"title":"Does uterine gauze packing increase the risk of puerperal morbidity in the management of postpartum hemorrhage during caesarean section: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Yu-Na Guo, Jue Ma, Xiao-Jin Wang, Bing-Shun Wang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the outcomes especially the puerperal morbidity of uterine gauze packing (UGP) with those of uterine balloon tamponade (UBT) in the management of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) during caesarean section (c-section).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>It was considered success as no requirement for either a further therapy or hysterectomy for PPH. The postpartum infection risk was pragmatically measured as puerperal morbidity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The identified PPH subjects were subdivided into two groups for comparison, in which UGP or UBT was used as second-line therapy for women undergoing c-sections between January 2010 and September 2014. Of the 318 c-section subjects initially treated by basic managements for expected PPH, 99 cases underwent UGP and 66 UBT as the second-line therapies to stop persistent bleeding. The success rates of the UGP and UBT groups were 90.91 and 87.88%, respectively. Only one patient in UBT group resorted to hysterectomy. The respective rates of puerperal morbidity were 10.10 and 13.64%, with risk ratio of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.32, 1.72). There were no significant differences between the two groups even after the adjustment for potential confounding factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>UGP appears to be effective in treating PPH during c-section without an observed increase in the risk of potential postpartum infection when compared with UBT. UGP could be recommended as routine for patients who are not responding to conventional basic therapies in addressing PPH, along with the provision of appropriate training.</p>","PeriodicalId":13892,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical and experimental medicine","volume":"8 8","pages":"13740-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4613005/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of clinical and experimental medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To compare the outcomes especially the puerperal morbidity of uterine gauze packing (UGP) with those of uterine balloon tamponade (UBT) in the management of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) during caesarean section (c-section).

Methods: It was considered success as no requirement for either a further therapy or hysterectomy for PPH. The postpartum infection risk was pragmatically measured as puerperal morbidity.

Results: The identified PPH subjects were subdivided into two groups for comparison, in which UGP or UBT was used as second-line therapy for women undergoing c-sections between January 2010 and September 2014. Of the 318 c-section subjects initially treated by basic managements for expected PPH, 99 cases underwent UGP and 66 UBT as the second-line therapies to stop persistent bleeding. The success rates of the UGP and UBT groups were 90.91 and 87.88%, respectively. Only one patient in UBT group resorted to hysterectomy. The respective rates of puerperal morbidity were 10.10 and 13.64%, with risk ratio of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.32, 1.72). There were no significant differences between the two groups even after the adjustment for potential confounding factors.

Conclusion: UGP appears to be effective in treating PPH during c-section without an observed increase in the risk of potential postpartum infection when compared with UBT. UGP could be recommended as routine for patients who are not responding to conventional basic therapies in addressing PPH, along with the provision of appropriate training.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在剖腹产术中处理产后出血时,子宫纱布包扎是否会增加产褥期发病风险:一项回顾性队列研究。
背景:比较子宫纱布填塞术(UGP)与子宫球囊填塞术(UBT)在处理剖腹产产后出血(PPH)方面的效果,尤其是产褥期发病率:方法:以不需要对 PPH 进行进一步治疗或切除子宫为成功标准。方法:PPH患者无需进一步治疗或切除子宫即为成功,产后感染风险作为产褥期发病率进行实际测量:2010年1月至2014年9月期间,对接受剖腹产的妇女使用UGP或UBT作为二线疗法。在318例剖腹产受试者中,有99例接受了UGP治疗,66例接受了UTBT治疗。UGP 组和 UBT 组的成功率分别为 90.91% 和 87.88%。UBT 组中只有一名患者进行了子宫切除术。产褥期发病率分别为 10.10% 和 13.64%,风险比为 0.74 (95% CI: 0.32, 1.72)。即使在调整了潜在的混杂因素后,两组之间仍无明显差异:结论:与 UBT 相比,UGP 似乎能有效治疗剖腹产期间的 PPH,且不会增加潜在的产后感染风险。对于常规基本疗法无效的 PPH 患者,可建议将 UGP 作为常规疗法,同时提供适当的培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
A case report of moderate COVID-19 with an extremely long-term viral shedding period in China Lentivirus-Mediated knockdown of tectonic family member 1 inhibits medulloblastoma cell proliferation [Retraction]. Classification of MRI and psychological testing data based on support vector machine. Nucleostemin regulates proliferation and migration of gastric cancer and correlates with its malignancy [Retraction]. Effect of lipiodol and methylene blue on the thoracoscopic preoperative positioning [Retraction].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1