Abstract：Objective To study the feasibility of using the Bishop score as a sign of vaginal delivery in pregnant women with scar uterus, and to analyze the application value of the Bishop scoring system in the judgment of the timing of the labor in the scar uterus. Methods Totally 120 pregnant women with scar uterus were selected who were to be delivered in our hospital from April 2017 to December 2017. According to the Bishop score, the parturients were divided into high score group (Bishop score>3) and low score group (Bishop score≤3). The delivery mode, duration of labor, hospitalization time and intrapartum bleeding of two groups were recorded, and the pregnancy complications of the two groups were analyzed. Results The vaginal delivery rate of the high score group (73.58%) was higher than that of the low score group (31.34%), and there were statistically significant differences between the two groups (χ2=21.121,P<0.001). The length of hospitalization time of the high score group [(9.53±2.14) h] was shorter than that of the low scrore group [(10.23±2.14) h], production hemorrhage of the high score group [(158.21±30.12) ml] was less than that of the low score group [(492.23±90.86) ml], and there were significant differences between the two groups (P< 0.05). The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (9.43%) was lower than that in Lower group (25.37%), and there were statistically significant differences between the two groups (P<0.05). The incidence of fetal distress in the high score group (11.32%) was lower than that of the low score group (28.36%), and there were significant differences between the two groups (P<0.05). Conclusion Pregnant women with scar uterus can undergo vaginal trial production. The rate of vaginal delivery in pregnant women with high Bishop scores is higher, and the incidence of postpartum and neonatal complications is low. The Bishop score can be used as an indication for vaginal delivery in pregnant women with scarred uterus.
[1] 付琇云.瘢痕子宫再次妊娠分娩结局的风险评估[J].中国药物与临床,2017,17(6):890-892. [2] 杨秀芳,冯亚斌,韩轶超,等.瘢痕子宫阴道试产的可行性分析[J].中国妇幼保健,2017,32(3):477-480. [3] BROSENS JJ, GELLERSEN B.Something new about early pregnancy: decidual biosensoring and natural embryo selection[J].Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(1):1-5. [4] JABEEN M, YAKOOB MY, IMDAD A, et al.Impact of interventions to prevent and manage preeclampsia and eclampsia on stillbirths[J].BMC Public Health. 2011;11(3):1-11. [5] 张辰晨,刘玲,夏义欣.瘢痕子宫再次妊娠阴道试产的可行性、条件及其影响因素[J].武警医学,2016,27(7):746-750. [6] 沈益兰.初产妇产褥期感染的相关危险因素调查分析[J].中国医院统计,2016,23(4):270-271. [7] 张静涛,张蕊,贾蕊莉,等.剖宫产术后瘢痕子宫再次足月妊娠阴道分娩240例临床分析[J].陕西医学杂志,2016,45(5):583-584. [8] BULLETTI C, DE ZD. Uterine contractility and embryo implantation[J]. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2006,18(4):473. [9] SARREAU M, LEUFFLEN L, MONCEAU E, et al.Balloon catheter for cervical ripening on scarred uterus with unfavorable cervix: multicenter retrospective study of 151 patients[J].J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2014,43(1):46-55. [10] 汪芬.急诊剖宫产术后切口感染发生率及危险因素调查[J].中国医院统计,2016,23(6):441-442. [11] 谭静,刘丽园,张立波.瘢痕子宫阴道分娩的并发症分析[J].中国医药科学,2016,6(4):58-60. [12] 胡宁宁,张英姿,代培培,等.子宫颈扩张球囊治疗剖宫产瘢痕妊娠清宫术后出血2例[J].滨州医学院学报,2017,40(3):238-240. [13] 刘星,刘俊丽.瘢痕子宫再次妊娠分娩方式临床分析[J].陕西医学杂志,2015,44(12):1639-1641. [14] 陈倩.瘢痕子宫再次妊娠阴道分娩相关问题[J].中国实用妇科与产科杂志,2014,30(6):425-428. [15] 刘茗敏,汤莲,全宏梅,等.宫颈Bishop评分动态观察在剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道分娩中预防子宫破裂的价值[J].中国妇幼健康研究,2014,25(5):797-798.
