Effect of New Peripudendal Block (PPB) in the Second Stage of Labour on Perineal Relaxation and on the Reduction of Episiotomy Rate: A Randomized Control Trial

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Obstetrics and Gynecology International Pub Date : 2022-03-26 DOI:10.1155/2022/9352540
A. Beke
{"title":"Effect of New Peripudendal Block (PPB) in the Second Stage of Labour on Perineal Relaxation and on the Reduction of Episiotomy Rate: A Randomized Control Trial","authors":"A. Beke","doi":"10.1155/2022/9352540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Methods In a prospective randomized study, we examined the extent to which the PPB we developed changed the rate of episiotomies, injury rates. Results A total of 333 primiparas and 324 multiparas were included in the study. In the case of primiparas, we used the PPD procedure in 133 cases, while in the case of multiparas, we used it in 103 cases. The rate of episiotomy in primiparas was 89/133 (66.9%) with PPD and 181/200 (90.5%) without PPD (p < 0.02). In multiparas, the episiotomy rate was 30/103 (29.1%) with PPD and 140/221 (63.3%) without PPD (p < 0.02). In the case of primiparas, the rate of perineal injury and lesion was 33/133 (24.8%) with PPD, while without PPD it was 12/200 (6.0%). Examining the need for all surgical care (due to episiotomy and/or injury), a total of 103/133 cases of operative surgery were required with PPD (77/4%) while 183/200 cases were required without PPD (91.5%)(p < 0.02). In the case of multiparas, the rate of perineal injury and lesion was 11/103 (10.7%) with PPD, while without PPD it was 9/221 (4.1%). In the case of multiparas, a total of 41/103 cases required surgical care with PPD (39.8%), while without PPD, 147/221 cases required surgical care (66.5%)(p < 0.02). Conclusion The PPB is simpler, requires less medication, can be easily mastered, and perineal relaxation can also be observed, reducing the need for an episiotomy.","PeriodicalId":19439,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynecology International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and Gynecology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9352540","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Methods In a prospective randomized study, we examined the extent to which the PPB we developed changed the rate of episiotomies, injury rates. Results A total of 333 primiparas and 324 multiparas were included in the study. In the case of primiparas, we used the PPD procedure in 133 cases, while in the case of multiparas, we used it in 103 cases. The rate of episiotomy in primiparas was 89/133 (66.9%) with PPD and 181/200 (90.5%) without PPD (p < 0.02). In multiparas, the episiotomy rate was 30/103 (29.1%) with PPD and 140/221 (63.3%) without PPD (p < 0.02). In the case of primiparas, the rate of perineal injury and lesion was 33/133 (24.8%) with PPD, while without PPD it was 12/200 (6.0%). Examining the need for all surgical care (due to episiotomy and/or injury), a total of 103/133 cases of operative surgery were required with PPD (77/4%) while 183/200 cases were required without PPD (91.5%)(p < 0.02). In the case of multiparas, the rate of perineal injury and lesion was 11/103 (10.7%) with PPD, while without PPD it was 9/221 (4.1%). In the case of multiparas, a total of 41/103 cases required surgical care with PPD (39.8%), while without PPD, 147/221 cases required surgical care (66.5%)(p < 0.02). Conclusion The PPB is simpler, requires less medication, can be easily mastered, and perineal relaxation can also be observed, reducing the need for an episiotomy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分娩第二阶段新阴部周围阻滞(PPB)对会阴松弛和降低会阴切开率的影响:一项随机对照试验
方法在一项前瞻性随机研究中,我们研究了我们开发的PPB在多大程度上改变了外阴切开术的发生率和损伤率。结果共纳入初产妇333例,多产妇324例。在初产妇的病例中,我们使用了133例PPD程序,而在多产妇的病例中,我们使用了103例。有PPD的初产妇会阴切开术率为89/133(66.9%),无PPD的初产妇会阴切开术率为181/200 (90.5%)(p < 0.02)。有PPD的会阴切开率为30/103(29.1%),无PPD的会阴切开率为140/221 (63.3%)(p < 0.02)。在初产妇中,PPD组会阴损伤及病变发生率为33/133(24.8%),未PPD组为12/200(6.0%)。检查所有手术护理的需要(由于外阴切开和/或损伤),共有103/133例PPD患者需要手术治疗(77/4%),而183/200例无PPD患者需要手术治疗(91.5%)(p < 0.02)。在多宫病例中,有PPD的会阴损伤及病变发生率为11/103(10.7%),无PPD的会阴损伤及病变发生率为9/221(4.1%)。在多囊卵巢病例中,有PPD的41/103例需要手术治疗(39.8%),无PPD的147/221例需要手术治疗(66.5%)(p < 0.02)。结论PPB操作简单,用药少,易于掌握,可观察到会阴松弛,减少会阴切开术的需要。
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
Obstetrics and Gynecology International
Obstetrics and Gynecology International OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Obstetrics and Gynecology International is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that aims to provide a forum for scientists and clinical professionals working in obstetrics and gynecology. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine, general gynecology, gynecologic oncology, uro-gynecology, reproductive medicine and infertility, reproductive endocrinology, and sexual medicine.
期刊最新文献
The Effect of "Motivational Interviewing" and "Information, Motivation, and Behavioral Skills Model" Counseling Interventions on the Choice of Delivery Mode in Pregnant Women Using Face-to-Face Training vs. Mobile App: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Factors Influencing Induction of Labor Success in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccine Impact on Women's Menstrual Health within an 18-Month Follow-Up. Association of Hormonal Contraceptives with Depression among Women in Reproductive Age Groups: A Cross-Sectional Analytic Study. Comparison of Time to Pregnancy in In Vitro Fertilisation between Endometriosis and Nonendometriosis.
×
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