• 中国科技论文统计源期刊
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • 中国高校优秀期刊
  • 安徽省优秀科技期刊
Volume 44 Issue 9
Sep.  2019
Article Contents
Turn off MathJax

Citation:

Comparison of the curative effect between pre-pregnancy laparoscopic cervix cerclage and McDonald cervical cerclage in the treatment of cervical dysfunction

  • Corresponding author: QU Wan-jun, Qwj2062@126.com
  • Received Date: 2019-03-30
    Accepted Date: 2019-07-30
  • ObjectiveTo compared the effects between pre-pregnancy laparoscopic cervix cerclage and McDonald cervical cerclage in the treatment of cervical incompetence.MethodsFifty patients with cervical incompetence were divided into the pre-pregnancy group(24 cases treatment with laparoscopic cervix cerclage) and pregnancy group(26 cases treatment with McDonald's cervical cerclage).The operation, and maternal and fetal outcomes between two groups were compared.ResultsNo conversion to open laparotomyànd operative complication occurred in two groups.The hospital stays and intraoperative blood loss in pre-pregnancy group were lower than those in pregnancy group(P < 0.05), and the difference of operation time between two groups was not statistically significant(P>0.05).The prenatal pregnancy and preterm birth rates, and full-term delivery rate in pregnancy group were lower and higher than those in pregnancy group, respectively(P < 0.05), while the difference of the late abortion rate between two groups was not statistically significant(P>0.05).There were 23 live births of neonates, and all were cesarean section in pre-pregnancy group.There were 22 live births of neonates, 11 cases were cesarean section, and 11 cases were natural labour in pregnancy group.The average gestational week and neonatal body mass in pregnancy group were lower than those in pre-pregnancy group(P < 0.05 to P < 0.01), and the rates of neonatal asphyxia and transfer NICU in pregnancy group were higher than those in pre-pregnancy group(P < 0.05).ConclusionsPre-pregnancy laparoscopic cervix cerclage in the treatment of cervical incompetence is short hospital stay and less bleeding during operation.It can reduce pregnancy spuc, and improve maternal and infant outcomes.It has good clinical effect, and is worth popularizing and applying.
  • 加载中
  • [1] SHIN JE, KIM MJ, KIM GW, et al.Laparoscopic transabdominal cervical cerclage:Case report of a woman without exocervix at 11 weeks gestation[J].Ohstet Gynecol Sci, 2014, 57(3):232. doi: 10.5468/ogs.2014.57.3.232
    [2] EL-NASHAR SA, PARAISO MF, RODEWALD K, et al.Laparoscopic cervicoisthmic cerclage:technique and systematic review of the literature[J].Gynecol Obstet Inves, 2013, 75(1):1. doi: 10.1159/000343036
    [3] NAMOUZ S, PORAT S, OKUN N, et al.Emergency cerclage:literature review[J].Obstet Gynecol Surv, 2013, 68:379. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0b013e31828737c7
    [4] 张松英, 金晓莹.改良经阴道峡部水平子宫颈环扎术[J].中华妇产科杂志, 2014, 49(4):309. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2014.04.018
    [5] 夏恩兰.《ACOG宫颈环扎术治疗宫颈机能不全指南》解读[J].国际妇产科学杂志, 2016, 43(6):652.
    [6] RUST OA, ATLAS RO, REED J, et al.Revisiting the short cervix detected by transvaginal ultrasound in the second trimester:why cerclage therapy may not help[J].Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2001, 185(5):1098. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.118163
    [7] 谢幸, 苟文丽.妇产科学[M].8版.北京:人民卫生出版社, 2013:60.
    [8] SHIRODKAR VN.A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy[J].Antiseptic, 1955, 2(2):299.
    [9] MCDONALD IA.Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage[J].J Obstet Gynecol Br Emp, 1957, 64(3):346. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1957.tb02650.x
    [10] LESSER KB, CHILDERS JM, SURWIT EA.Transabdominal cerclage:a laparoscopic approach[J].Obstet Gynecol, 1998, 91(8):855.
    [11] 张瑜, 朱前勇, 郭楠楠.非孕期和孕期腹腔镜下宫颈环扎术对宫颈功能不全的临床疗效比较[J].实用医药杂志, 2017, 34(8):704.
    [12] CHEN YQ, LIU, HSH GU JY, et al.Therapeutic effect and safety of laparoscopic cervical cerclage for treatment of cervical insuffiiency in fist trimester or non-pregnant phase[J].Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015, 8(5):7710.
    [13] 唐林, 李克敏, 罗国林.非孕期腹腔镜与孕期经阴道宫颈环扎术对治疗宫颈机能不全的疗效比较[J].西部医学, 2018, 30(5):672. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3511.2018.05.011
  • 加载中
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Tables(4)

Article views(3857) PDF downloads(8) Cited by()

Related
Proportional views

Comparison of the curative effect between pre-pregnancy laparoscopic cervix cerclage and McDonald cervical cerclage in the treatment of cervical dysfunction

    Corresponding author: QU Wan-jun, Qwj2062@126.com
  • Department of, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei Anhui 230000, China

Abstract: ObjectiveTo compared the effects between pre-pregnancy laparoscopic cervix cerclage and McDonald cervical cerclage in the treatment of cervical incompetence.MethodsFifty patients with cervical incompetence were divided into the pre-pregnancy group(24 cases treatment with laparoscopic cervix cerclage) and pregnancy group(26 cases treatment with McDonald's cervical cerclage).The operation, and maternal and fetal outcomes between two groups were compared.ResultsNo conversion to open laparotomyànd operative complication occurred in two groups.The hospital stays and intraoperative blood loss in pre-pregnancy group were lower than those in pregnancy group(P < 0.05), and the difference of operation time between two groups was not statistically significant(P>0.05).The prenatal pregnancy and preterm birth rates, and full-term delivery rate in pregnancy group were lower and higher than those in pregnancy group, respectively(P < 0.05), while the difference of the late abortion rate between two groups was not statistically significant(P>0.05).There were 23 live births of neonates, and all were cesarean section in pre-pregnancy group.There were 22 live births of neonates, 11 cases were cesarean section, and 11 cases were natural labour in pregnancy group.The average gestational week and neonatal body mass in pregnancy group were lower than those in pre-pregnancy group(P < 0.05 to P < 0.01), and the rates of neonatal asphyxia and transfer NICU in pregnancy group were higher than those in pre-pregnancy group(P < 0.05).ConclusionsPre-pregnancy laparoscopic cervix cerclage in the treatment of cervical incompetence is short hospital stay and less bleeding during operation.It can reduce pregnancy spuc, and improve maternal and infant outcomes.It has good clinical effect, and is worth popularizing and applying.

  • 宫颈机能不全(cervical incompetence, CI)是指子宫颈内口的形态、结构以及功能由于先天性发育不良或后天损伤等情况,出现病理性扩张。其发生率在妊娠女性中占1%[1]。CI是引起中孕期反复流产以及早产的重要原因。反复流产者约占8%~15%[2]。宫颈环扎术是治疗CI的主要方法,包括经阴道和经腹宫颈环扎术。对于有严重的宫颈机能不全、既往经阴道环扎失败者、宫颈部分切除、生殖道畸形等情况,不宜行经阴道环扎[3]。本研究分析50例接受不同手术方式治疗宫颈机能不全病人的临床资料,比较临床疗效,以期能指导宫颈机能不全病人手术方式的选择。

1.   资料与方法
  • 选取2015年1月至2019年1月在我院就诊的宫颈机能不全病人50例,年龄21~41岁,流产次数为1~6次,自然流产孕周为15~26周。所有病人均符合CI诊断标准,并除外低置胎盘、胎儿畸形及阴道炎病人。所有病人均接受宫颈环扎术,根据手术方式不同分为2组,孕前接受腹腔镜下宫颈环扎术为孕前组24例;孕中期接受McDonald宫颈环扎术为孕期组26例。2组病人的一般资料(年龄、自然流产孕周、流产次数)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 1)。

    分组 n 年龄/岁 流产次数/次 自然流产孕周/周
    孕前组 24 31.92±3.70 1.96±0.59 22.8±1.6
    孕期组 26 30.34±4.51 1.90±0.45 23.1±1.8
    t 1.35 0.41 0.62
    P >0.05 >0.05 >0.05
  • (1) 有1次或以上妊娠中期自然流产史; (2)流产前为无痛性宫颈扩张; (3)首次分娩有宫颈损伤史; (4)既往有宫颈或子宫手术史; (5)非孕期B超提示宫颈病理性扩张,8号扩宫棒顺利通过宫颈管;(6)输卵管造影提示子宫峡部漏斗处管状扩张; (7)孕期无宫缩情况下,B超显示宫颈长度<2 cm,或宫颈内口宽度>15 mm,甚至宫颈管内可见羊膜囊突入。符合上述条件中(1)和(2),并具有(3)~(7)中任何一条或多条即可诊断。

  • (1) 常规消毒铺巾(膀胱截石位),取脐孔及左右下腹共3个穿刺孔,置入腹腔镜器械。(2)放置杯状举宫器上推子宫,超声刀打开膀胱返折腹膜,将膀胱适当下推,暴露子宫峡部和双侧子宫血管。(3)将宫颈环扎线(两端带针)的缝针由弯变直,自子宫峡部外侧缘与子宫动脉内侧缘之间进针(由前向后,穿过部分峡部肌层),于子宫血管及骶韧带之间出针。(4)宫腔镜下确认宫颈管无环扎线穿透,于子宫峡部后方打结。松紧度以可通过6号扩宫棒为宜。返折腹膜不必缝合。

  • 常规消毒铺巾(膀胱截石位),将子宫颈向下方牵拉,用中号圆针10号线,自宫颈11点处于宫颈内口水平进针,穿过子宫颈黏膜下层(避免穿透宫颈黏膜),逆时针分别于宫颈四个象限处环绕缝合(避开3点和9点血管从),从1点出出针,并打结。打结松紧度以容指尖为度。

  • 对病人的住院时间及手术情况进行比较分析。并对病人进行随访,了解病人妊娠结局,通过比较孕期住院保胎情况及晚期流产、早产、足月产等,并对平均分娩孕周、新生儿体质量、新生儿窒息以及转NICU等情况进行比较,从而分析两种术式对妊娠结局的影响。

  • 采用t检验和χ2检验。

2.   结果
  • 2组病人均未中转开腹,无手术并发症发生。孕前组住院时间和术中出血量较孕期组减少(P < 0.01),2组手术时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 2)。

    分组 n 住院时间/d 手术时间/min 术中出血量/mL
    孕前组 24 5.8±1.0 38.5±4.0 12±2.8
    孕期组 26 2.6±0.9 37.2±3.5 28±7.9
    t 11.91 1.23 9.39
    P < 0.01 >0.05 < 0.01
  • 孕期组住院保胎率及早产率均高于孕前组(P < 0.01和P < 0.05),而孕前组的足月产率高于孕期组(P < 0.01),但2组晚期流产率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 3)。

    分组 n 孕期住院保胎 晚期流产 早产 足月产
    孕前组 24 4(16.67) 1(4.17) 3(12.50) 20(83.33)
    孕期组 26 14(53.85) 4(15.38) 10(38.46) 12(46.15)
    χ2 7.49 1.75 4.37 7.49
    P < 0.01 >0.05 <0.05 < 0.01
  • 孕前组新生儿活产23例,均为剖宫产;孕期组新生儿活产22例,其中11例顺产分娩,11例为剖宫产。孕期组平均分娩孕周和新生儿体质量均低于孕前组(P < 0.05~P < 0.01),而新生儿窒息率和转NICU率高于孕前组(P < 0.05)(见表 4)。

    分组 n 平均分娩孕周/周 新生儿体质量/kg 新生儿窒息 转NICU
    孕前组 23 38±3.16 3020±488.26 2(8.70) 2(8.70)
    孕期组 22 35±2.64 2650±521.26 8(36.36) 9(40.91)
    χ2 3.43 2.43 4.98 6.32
    P < 0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
3.   讨论
  • CI是指妊娠妇女在中晚期妊娠时出现无痛性宫颈缩短、宫颈管扩张,引起妊娠中期流产或早产。据报道[5],妊娠中期反复流产者中20%~25%系CI所致,妊娠中期流产者中约30%的病人会复发。据RUST等[6]统计,CI病人早产率是非CI病人的3.3倍,占全部早产的8%~9%。而早产是导致新生儿死亡和致残的主要原因。据统计,CI发病率为0.1%~2.0%,并逐年上升[7]。由此可见,CI的诊断和防治至关重要。CI的诊断主要依据反复妊娠中期流产或早产史,以及非孕期宫颈扩张试验、输卵管造影以及孕期B超检查等,本研究中所有病人均有妊娠中期无痛性宫颈扩张伴流产史,有1例系宫颈环形电切术(LEEP)术后。多数研究表明,引产、分娩(尤其急产)、刮宫、人工流产、LEEP术和宫颈锥切术(与术后宫颈管长短有关)等均可引起宫颈括约肌功能受损,因而成为CI的高危因素。据2014年美国妇产科学会制定的宫颈环扎术指南,既往有1次及以上妊娠中期无痛性宫颈扩张伴流产病史者,可作为宫颈环扎的病史性指征。因此对有不明原因的无痛性中期妊娠流产病人,可适当放宽手术指征,于孕前或孕期积极进行宫颈环扎术,若同时合并高危因素,或B超提示宫颈缩短、宫颈管扩张等,更应积极手术。

  • 目前治疗CI的唯一有效术式是宫颈环扎术,包括经阴道和经腹两种,均可使宫颈管张力加强,阻止宫颈内口扩张,利于宫颈内口承受中晚期妊娠胎儿及其附属物的重力。

    经阴道宫颈环扎术包括Shirodkar和McDonald术式,SHIRODKAR等[8]最早提出经阴道宫颈环扎术,需推开、游离膀胱后于宫颈内口处荷包缝合,并包埋线结,操作较复杂。1957年MCDONALD[9]提出改良术式,在阴道宫颈连接部位(宫颈内口水平)直接逆时针荷包缝合,操作简单,不需要游离膀胱。本研究中有26例病人采取此种术式。但由于CI病人多伴有宫颈缩短和扩张,使得环扎位置低于宫颈内口,仅靠环扎线及其下方宫颈组织的支撑作用,使得后续妊娠的维持相对困难。若缝合位置过高,可导致胎膜破裂。因而阴道环扎的失败率相对较高。再者,经阴道环扎术术后留有线结,容易引起宫颈裂伤、上行性感染如绒毛膜羊膜炎等,不利于病人的后续妊娠。

    经腹环扎术包括经腹和腹腔镜两种途径,既往经腹手术发生膀胱损伤、子宫动脉损伤、慢性盆腔痛等并发症,且经腹手术创伤较大,因而仅作为阴道环扎术失败的补救方案。自1998年LESSER等[10]顺利完成腹腔镜下宫颈环扎后,近年来该项技术不断发展成熟,缝合线由尼龙线改成聚丙烯环扎带,手术创伤小,利于病人的恢复,得到更多病人的认可。腹腔镜下宫颈环扎可下推膀胱,使子宫峡部充分暴露,因而能于宫颈内口上方精准环扎,补救了宫颈内口缺陷问题。且环扎带较粗,比环扎线更能承受和维持后续妊娠。另外,环扎线位于盆腔内,未穿透至宫颈管黏膜层,与生殖道不相通,不易引起宫腔感染,且环扎带较粗,不易引起宫颈损伤,更利于妊娠进行。关于手术时机,据张瑜等[11]研究报道,45例CI病人(非孕期22例,早期妊娠14例,中期妊娠9例)均行腹腔镜下宫颈环扎术,术后足月分娩率和胎儿存活率无明显差异,但孕中期的住院时间和手术时间均长于非孕期和孕早期,且易出现中转开腹,手术难度大。另外,妊娠子宫血供丰富,子宫敏感度增高,宫颈环扎手术并发症较非孕期增多,因此该手术最好在非孕期实施。本研究中,24例于非孕期(孕前半年至1年)行宫颈环扎,在月经后3~5 d实施手术(此时宫颈组织松软,易于手术),无手术并发症发生,无中转开腹,且住院时间及术中出血量较孕期手术减少,术后均顺利妊娠,仅1例出现晚期流产.由此可见非孕期手术更安全、有效,利于病人机体恢复。

    关于两种术式对母婴结局的影响,据CHEN等[12]等报道,134例CI病人根据手术时机和方式不同分为3组,经阴道环扎组33例,孕期及非孕期腹腔镜环扎组(分别为43例、58例),比较术后平均延长孕周、平均分娩孕周、足月分娩率、胎儿存活率等指标得出,腹腔镜环扎组(孕期和非孕期)各项指标均高于经阴道环扎术,但非孕期和孕期腹腔镜环扎组之间差异无统计学意义。唐林等[13]对57例行宫颈环扎术的CI病人进行了分析,其中非孕期腹腔镜宫颈环扎(试验组)30例,对照组27例,为孕期行经阴道环扎,试验组的足月分娩率和新生儿体质量均高于对照组。在本研究中,孕前组的孕期住院保胎率、早产率、新生儿窒息及转NICU均低于孕期组,而平均分娩孕周及足月产率、新生儿体质量均高于孕期组,可见孕前行腹腔镜下宫颈环扎术能减少住院保胎,延长孕周,减少早产及低体质量儿的出生,从而改善母婴结局。

    由此可见,孕前行腹腔镜下宫颈环扎术安全、可靠,术中出血量少,并发症少,住院时间短,降低孕期住院保胎率及早产率,延长孕周,提高足月分娩率,明显改善母婴结局,临床疗效较好,值得推广应用。

Reference (13)

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return