阴道分娩中肩难产发生的危险因素及旋后肩法的干预效果评价

陆颖; 尤爱军; 吴嘉涵

doi:10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.001962

阴道分娩中肩难产发生的危险因素及旋后肩法的干预效果评价

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.001962

1.
宁波市妇女儿童医院分娩室，浙江宁波 315000
2.
宁波市妇女儿童医院产科，浙江宁波 315000

基金项目:

浙江省医药卫生科技计划项目 2019ZH008

详细信息

通讯作者:
陆颖, E-mail: lynb77@163.com

中图分类号: R714.44
计量
- 文章访问数: 124
- HTML全文浏览量: 87
- PDF下载量: 1
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-05-29
- 网络出版日期: 2022-02-16

Risk factors of shoulder dystocia during maternal delivery and the evaluation of the intervention effect of posterior shoulder rotation

LU Ying^{1
, ,},
YOU Ai-jun¹,
WU Jia-han²

1.
Delivery Room, Ningbo Women's and Children's Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315000, China

摘要

摘要: 目的探究产妇生产中肩难产发生的危险因素及旋后肩法的干预效果。方法收集宁波市妇女儿童医2019年1月—2020年1月行阴道分娩的5 812例产妇相关资料，其中发生肩难产59例(病例组)，未发生肩难产5 753例(对照组)，单因素及多因素logistic回归分析肩难产发生的危险因素。另59例肩难产产妇中接受常规压前肩法促分娩27例(病例1组)，行旋后肩法促分娩32例(病例2组)，比较各组妊娠结局。结果单因素可见病例组、对照组在年龄、体重指数(BMI)、妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)、宫缩乏力、巨大儿上对比差异有统计学意义(均P < 0.05)；多因素logistic分析得出BMI＞27、GDM、宫缩乏力、巨大儿是产妇生产中肩难产发生的独立危险因素(均P < 0.05)。病例组产妇、新生儿不良结局总发生率分别为20.34%、13.56%，均显著高于对照组的6.67%、0.42%(均P < 0.05)；病例1组产妇不良结局总发生率为25.93%，与病例2组的15.62%对比差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)，病例1组新生儿不良结局总发生率为25.93%，显著高于病例2组的3.13%(P < 0.05)。结论产妇生产中肩难产发生危险因素较多，需针对性管理以预防肩难产；而对肩难产发生后，旋后肩法相对常规压前肩法，其不良母婴结局发生率低。
- 阴道分娩 /
- 肩难产 /
- 危险因素 /
- 旋后肩法 /
- 妊娠结局
Abstract: Objective To explore the risk factors of shoulder dystocia during maternal delivery and the intervention effect of posterior shoulder rotation. Methods Data of 5 812 women who underwent vaginal delivery in Ningbo Women's and Children's Hospital from January 2019 to January 2020 were collected, including 59 women with shoulder dystocia (case group) and 5 753 women without shoulder dystocia (control group). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted on the risk factors of shoulder dystocia. Among the 59 women with shoulder dystocia, 27 cases received conventional forearm pressure (case group 1), and 32 cases received posterior shoulder rotation (case group 2). The pregnancy outcomes of the groups were compared. Results Statistically significant differences in age, body mass index (BMI), gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), uterine inertia and macrosomia were found between the case and control groups (all P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic analysis showed that BMI>27, GDM, uterine inertia and macrosomia were independent risk factors for shoulder dystocia (all P < 0.05). The total incidence rates of maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in the case group were 20.34% and 13.56%, respectively, which were higher than those in the control group (6.67% and 0.42%, respectively; all P < 0.05). The total incidence rate of maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in the case group 1 was 25.93%, which was not significantly different from at in case group 2 (15.62%, P>0.05). The total incidence rate of adverse neonatal outcomes in case group 1 was 25.93%, which was significantly higher than that in case group 2 (3.13%; P < 0.05). Conclusion Shoulder dystocia in maternal delivery have numerous risk factors, and thus targeted management is necessary to the prevention of shoulder dystocia. The incidence rates of adverse maternal and infant outcomes when the posterior shoulder rotation method is used are lower than those when the conventional shoulder pressing method is used for treating shoulder dystocia.
- Vaginal delivery /
- Shoulder dystocia /
- Risk factors /
- Posterior shoulder rotation /
- Pregnancy outcomes

HTML全文

表 1 产妇生产中肩难产发生的单因素分析

项目	类别	例数	病例组(n=59)	对照组(n=5 753)	统计量	P值
年龄(岁)	≥35	628	14(2.23)	614(97.77)	10.329^a	0.001
	＜35	5 184	45(0.87)	5 139(99.13)
BMI	＞27	1 311	22(1.68)	1 289(98.32)	14.567^a	0.002
	24~27	1 956	25(1.28)	1 931(98.72)
	18.5~23.9	1 467	7(0.48)	1 460(99.52)
	＜18.5	1 078	5(0.46)	1 073(99.54)
孕次(次)			2.47±0.85	2.34±0.81	1.226^b	0.220
产次(次)			1.62±0.58	1.70±0.69	0.887^b	0.375
GH	有	279	5(1.79)	274(98.21)	1.761^a	0.185
	无	5 533	54(0.97)	5 479(99.03)
GDM	有	1 192	26(2.18)	1 166(97.82)	20.291^a	＜0.001
	无	4 620	33(0.71)	4 587(99.29)
宫缩乏力	有	1 744	32(1.83)	1 712(98.17)	16.662^a	＜0.001
	无	4 068	27(0.66)	4 041(99.34)
巨大儿	有	274	22(8.03)	252(91.97)	70.675^a	＜0.001
	无	5 538	37(0.67)	5 501(99.33)
分娩镇痛	是	4 359	46(1.06)	4 313(98.94)	0.280^a	0.597
	否	1 453	13(0.89)	1 440(99.11)
注：^a为χ²值，^b为t值。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 产妇生产中肩难产发生的多因素logistic回归分析

自变量	B	SE	Wald χ²	P值	OR(95% CI)
年龄≥35岁	1.220	0.635	3.591	0.055	3.387(0.976~11.759)
BMI＞27	1.138	0.450	6.395	0.012	3.121(1.292~7.538)
GDM	1.007	0.421	5.721	0.017	2.737(1.199~6.247)
宫缩乏力	1.110	0.453	6.004	0.015	3.034(1.249~7.373)
巨大儿	0.324	0.082	15.612	＜0.001	1.383(1.177~1.624)

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 各组产妇结局对比[例(%)]

组别	例数	产后出血	阴道壁裂伤	宫颈裂伤	合计
病例组	59	7(11.86)	3(5.08)	2(3.39)	12(20.34)^a
病例1组	27	4(14.81)	2(7.41)	1(3.70)	7(25.93)^b
病例2组	32	3(9.37)	1(3.12)	1(3.12)	5(15.62)
对照组	5 753	305(5.30)	44(0.76)	35(0.61)	384(6.67)
注：^a为与对照组比较，χ²=17.174，P < 0.001；^b为与病例2组比较，χ²=0.959，P=0.327。

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 各组新生儿结局对比[例(%)]

组别	例数	新生儿骨折	新生儿窒息	合计
病例组	59	6(6.78)	2(3.39)	8(13.56)^a
病例1组	27	5(18.52)	2(7.41)	7(25.93)^b
病例2组	32	1(3.13)	0(0.00)	1(3.13)
对照组	5 753	3(0.05)	21(0.37)	24(0.42)
注：^a为与对照组比较，χ²=122.751，P < 0.001；^b为与病例2组比较，χ²=4.696，P=0.030。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(18)

[1]	谢幸, 孔北华, 段涛. 妇产科学[M]. 9版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2018: 202.
[2]	MENTICOGLOU S. Shoulder dystocia: Incidence, mechanisms, and management strategies[J]. Int J Womens Health, 2018, 10(9): 723-732. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000041685285599_26c1.html
[3]	袁平, 李仁兰, 刘梅. 改良式娩肩法对肩难产母儿预后的影响[J]. 护士进修杂志, 2018, 33(10): 913-914. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FSJX201810016.htm
[4]	栗娜, 李秋玲, 常靓, 等. 非巨大儿肩难产发生的高危因素及其临床预测[J]. 中华妇产科杂志, 2015, 50(1): 17-21. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2015.01.005
[5]	路云霞, 杜荷荣. 肩难产的临床预防和处理分析[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志, 2015, 24(14): 1518-1520. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-8849.2015.14.013
[6]	MURPHY C, RASHID W, HENDERSON C E. Gestational diabetes mellitus and frequency of blood glucose monitoring: A randomized controlled trial[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 130(1): 163-170. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002101
[7]	李洁, 嵇秀明. 苏州市某医院2015~2018年肩难产发生率横断面调查及危险因素分析[J]. 齐鲁护理杂志, 2020, 26(10): 44-47. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7256.2020.10.014
[8]	梅巧娣. 肩难产高危因素的Logistic回归分析及对母婴结局的影响[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2019, 34(3): 505-507. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZFYB201903008.htm
[9]	李洁, 嵇秀明, 夏珊敏. 肩难产风险预警评分模型的构建研究[J]. 全科护理, 2020, 18(9): 1032-1036. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JTHS202009003.htm
[10]	AL-HAWASH S, WHITEHEAD C L, FARINE D. Risk of recurrent shoulder dystocia: are we any closer to prediction?[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2019, 32(17): 2928-2934. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1450382
[11]	邓芬, 朱贝贝, 黄锟, 等. 不同妊娠期糖尿病诊断标准对不良妊娠结局的预测能力比较[J]. 现代预防医学, 2020, 47(5): 835-838, 902. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDYF202005017.htm
[12]	张芝银, 李秀央, 郑国英, 等. 不良妊娠结局的影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2020, 32(1): 94-97. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-3110.2020.01.026
[13]	PAHLITZSCH T M J, HANNE L, HENRICH W, et al. Influence of foetal macrosomia on the neonatal and maternal birth outcome[J]. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd, 2019, 79(11): 1191-1198. doi: 10.1055/a-0880-6182
[14]	王晓怡, 何玉甜, 钟梅, 等. 肩难产发生的危险因素和临床特征的多中心分析[J]. 中华妇产科杂志, 2015, 50(1): 12-16. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2015.01.004
[15]	ROBSON M. Shoulder dystocia: Is it time to think differently?[J]. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 2019, 59(5): 605-607. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13060
[16]	刘雁, 孙金燕, 万丽. 改良娩肩法应用于肩难产产妇中的效果分析[J]. 蚌埠医学院学报, 2020, 45(1): 128-130. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-BANG202001037.htm
[17]	黄静云. 屈大腿联合旋后肩法应用于肩难产的临床效果[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2018, 33(16): 3815-3818. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZFYB201816068.htm
[18]	尤爱军. 旋后肩法在肩难产处理中的应用[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2015, 50(11): 1318-1321. doi: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2015.11.007