妊娠中期终止手术的疗效;医疗,机械,还是联合?

Tuncay Yüce, Dilek Yüksel, Erkan Kalafat, Acar Koç
{"title":"妊娠中期终止手术的疗效;医疗,机械,还是联合?","authors":"Tuncay Yüce,&nbsp;Dilek Yüksel,&nbsp;Erkan Kalafat,&nbsp;Acar Koç","doi":"10.1556/1646.10.2018.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>During mid-trimester, it is necessary to terminate pregnancy due to some fetal anomalies and intrauterine death. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare abortion induction methods and combined use retrospectively.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>About 112 out of 223 pregnant patients were included in the study. The groups were determined as follows: Group 1 including pregnant patients who were administered misoprostol only (50 patients), Group 2 including pregnant patients who were administered single dose misoprostol (according to FIGO) and subsequently received cervical Foley catheter (30 patients), and Group 3 including pregnant patients who received Foley catheter only (32 patients). These three groups were compared in terms of effectiveness of the method, side effects, and complications as well as their characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of characteristic of the groups, the average age of the women in the Group 1 was significantly higher than other two groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001). In terms of effectiveness of the method, the termination period in Groups 1 and 2 was significantly lower than Group 3 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). However, in terms of complications, it was observed that uterine rupture was developed in Group 1.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although medical methods may seem to be more effective in the process of termination, mechanical methods seem more reliable in terms of reliability. Especially combined methods can be used to increase effectiveness and also to reduce complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":45181,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Medicine and Applied Science","volume":"10 3","pages":"133-136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/1646.10.2018.25","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of second-trimester termination procedure; medical, mechanic, or combine?\",\"authors\":\"Tuncay Yüce,&nbsp;Dilek Yüksel,&nbsp;Erkan Kalafat,&nbsp;Acar Koç\",\"doi\":\"10.1556/1646.10.2018.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>During mid-trimester, it is necessary to terminate pregnancy due to some fetal anomalies and intrauterine death. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare abortion induction methods and combined use retrospectively.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>About 112 out of 223 pregnant patients were included in the study. The groups were determined as follows: Group 1 including pregnant patients who were administered misoprostol only (50 patients), Group 2 including pregnant patients who were administered single dose misoprostol (according to FIGO) and subsequently received cervical Foley catheter (30 patients), and Group 3 including pregnant patients who received Foley catheter only (32 patients). These three groups were compared in terms of effectiveness of the method, side effects, and complications as well as their characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of characteristic of the groups, the average age of the women in the Group 1 was significantly higher than other two groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001). In terms of effectiveness of the method, the termination period in Groups 1 and 2 was significantly lower than Group 3 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). However, in terms of complications, it was observed that uterine rupture was developed in Group 1.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although medical methods may seem to be more effective in the process of termination, mechanical methods seem more reliable in terms of reliability. Especially combined methods can be used to increase effectiveness and also to reduce complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Medicine and Applied Science\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"133-136\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/1646.10.2018.25\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Medicine and Applied Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1556/1646.10.2018.25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Medicine and Applied Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/1646.10.2018.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:在妊娠中期,由于一些胎儿异常和宫内死亡,终止妊娠是必要的。因此,在本研究中,我们旨在回顾性比较引产方法和联合使用。方法:选取223例妊娠患者中的112例作为研究对象。各组分为:第1组仅给予米索前列醇治疗的孕妇(50例),第2组仅给予单剂量米索前列醇治疗的孕妇(根据FIGO)后行宫颈Foley导管治疗(30例),第3组仅给予Foley导管治疗的孕妇(32例)。比较三组治疗方法的疗效、副作用、并发症及特点。结果:从组间特征上看,1组妇女的平均年龄明显高于其他两组(p p)结论:虽然医学方法在终止妊娠过程中似乎更有效,但从可靠性上看,机械方法似乎更可靠。特别是联合使用的方法可以提高疗效,也可以减少并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Efficacy of second-trimester termination procedure; medical, mechanic, or combine?

Objectives: During mid-trimester, it is necessary to terminate pregnancy due to some fetal anomalies and intrauterine death. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare abortion induction methods and combined use retrospectively.

Methods: About 112 out of 223 pregnant patients were included in the study. The groups were determined as follows: Group 1 including pregnant patients who were administered misoprostol only (50 patients), Group 2 including pregnant patients who were administered single dose misoprostol (according to FIGO) and subsequently received cervical Foley catheter (30 patients), and Group 3 including pregnant patients who received Foley catheter only (32 patients). These three groups were compared in terms of effectiveness of the method, side effects, and complications as well as their characteristics.

Results: In terms of characteristic of the groups, the average age of the women in the Group 1 was significantly higher than other two groups (p < 0.001). In terms of effectiveness of the method, the termination period in Groups 1 and 2 was significantly lower than Group 3 (p < 0.001). However, in terms of complications, it was observed that uterine rupture was developed in Group 1.

Conclusions: Although medical methods may seem to be more effective in the process of termination, mechanical methods seem more reliable in terms of reliability. Especially combined methods can be used to increase effectiveness and also to reduce complications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interventional Medicine and Applied Science
Interventional Medicine and Applied Science MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Plasma interleukin-6 levels correlate with survival in patients with bacterial sepsis and septic shock. Levels of glucagon-like peptide 1 in hyperemesis gravidarum. ln vitro inhibition of beta-hematin formation and in vivo effects of Diospyros mespiliformis and Mondia whitei methanol extracts on chloroquine-susceptible Plasmodium berghei-induced malaria in mice. Pulsation of catheter during coronary angiography: Is it a sign of severe aortic regurgitation? Efficacy, safety and tolerability of bosentan as an adjuvant to sildenafil and sildenafil alone in persistant pulmonary hypertension of newborn (PPHN).
×
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