腰硬联合麻醉和硬膜外麻醉对妊高症剖宫产临床麻醉效果的对比研究
Clinical Anesthesia Effect of Combined Spinal-Epidural and Epidural Anesthesia on Cesarean in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2018.86089, PDF,   
作者: 韦景校:南宁市马山县人民医院麻醉科,广西 南宁;梁 宁:广西壮族自治区人民医院麻醉科,广西 南宁
关键词: 妊高症腰硬联合麻醉硬膜外麻醉Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension Combined Spinal and Epidural Anesthesia (CSEA) Epidural An-esthesia (EA)
摘要: 目的:对比腰硬联合麻醉和硬膜外麻醉在妊高症剖宫产中的临床效果。方法:将我院2016年1月至2016年12月间的60例妊高症剖宫产手术,将患者随机分为研究组和对照组,实验组采用腰硬联合麻醉,对照组采用硬膜外麻醉,对比两钟麻醉方式的临床效果。结果:实验组镇痛效果及手术中内脏牵拉痛抑制率优于对照组,两组不良反应发生率无明显差异。结论:妊高症患者接受剖宫产手术时,腰硬联合麻醉的临床效果优于单纯硬膜外麻醉。
Abstract: Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) with epidural anesthesia (EA) in cesarean section of pregnancy-induced hypertension syndrome. Method: 60 cases of patients with pregnancy-induced hypertension syndrome who received treatment in our hospital were randomly divided into research group and control group, and both groups were underwent cesarean section. The combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) was used in the research group, control group adopted epidural anesthesia. Then clinical effect of two anesthesias was evaluated. Result: The analgesic effect and inhibition of visceral traction pain were better in the experimental group than in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups. Conclusion: The clinical effect of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in patients with PIH underwent cesarean section was better than that of epidural anesthesia alone.
文章引用:韦景校, 梁宁. 腰硬联合麻醉和硬膜外麻醉对妊高症剖宫产临床麻醉效果的对比研究[J]. 临床医学进展, 2018, 8(6): 540-543. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2018.86089

参考文献

[1] Miettola, S., Hartikainen, A.L., Vaarasmaki, M., et al. (2013) Offspring’s Blood Pressure and Metabolic Phenotype after Exposure to Gestational Hypertension in Utero. European Journal of Epidemiology, 28, 87-98.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Berg, C.J., Callaghan, W.M., Syverson, C. and Henderson, Z. (2010) Pregnancy-Related Mortality in the United States, 1998 to 2005. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 116, 1302-1309.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[3] Danza, A., Ruiz-Irastorza, G. and Khamashta, M. (2012) Antiphospohlipid Syndrome in Obstetrics. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 26, 65-76.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Homer, C.S., Brown, M.A., Mangos, G. and Davis, G.K. (2008) Non-Proteinuric Pre-Eclampsia: A Novel Risk Indicator in Women with Gestational Hypertension. Journal of Hypertension, 26, 295-302.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[5] Pettit, F. and Brown, M.A. (2012) The Management of Pre-Eclampsia: What We Think We Know. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 160, 6-12.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Trogstad, L., Magnus, P. and Stoltenberg, C. (2011) Pre-Eclampsia: Risk Factors and Causal Models. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 25, 329-342.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] James, J.L., Whitley, G.S. and Cartwright, J.E. (2010) Pre-Eclampsia: Fitting Together the Placental, Immune and Cardiovascular Pieces. The Journal of Pathology, 221, 363-378.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Abhari, F.R., Ghanbari Andarieh, M., Farokhfar, A. and Ahmady, S. (2014) Estimating Rate of Insulin Resistance in Patients with Preeclampsia Using HOMA-IR Index and Comparison with Nonpreeclampsia Pregnant Women. BioMed Research International, 2014, Article ID: 140851.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]