These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [A comparison of the effectiveness of five types of hemostatic surgeries for intractable postpartum haemorrhage and the factors of failed hemostasis].
    Author: Luo FY, Chen M, Zhang L, Yu HY, You Y, Qu HB, Liu XH.
    Journal: Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2012 Sep; 47(9):641-5. PubMed ID: 23141283.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To study the different clinical effects of using 5 kinds of hemostatic surgeries to manage the intractable postpartum hemorrhage and analyse the risk factors of failed hemostasis. METHODS: From Jan. 2007 to Jul. 2011, 96 patients with intractable postpartum hemorrhage were studied retrospectively and grouped by the first step surgical treatment. The hemostatic surgeries included uterine tamponade (tamponade group), pelvic blood vessels ligation (ligation group), pelvical arterial embolization (embolization group), uterine compression sutures (sutures group) and uterine compression sutures combining tamponade (combined group). The intraoperative and postoperation datum were compared among groups, so dose the treatment outcomes. Multivariate analysis were used for failed hemostasis. RESULTS: (1) The blood loss of 96 patients ranged from 1200 to 9100 ml, and 71 patients had a succeed hemoatasis after employing these surgeries and 25 failed. (2) The blood loss before hemostasis surgeries in tamponade group and embolization group was statistically greater than in sutures group (P < 0.05). Blood loss during the hemostasis surgeries in ligation group was statistically greater than in embolization and sutures groups (P < 0.05). The operating time of embolization group was statistically shorter than ligation group, sutures group and the combined group (P < 0.05). (3) Fine of 96 patients had uterine atony and 43 had a successful hemostasis with the success rate about 78%. Forty-six had placenta previa and 39 success with success rate 85%. Thirty-three had placenta accrete and 13 of which succeed in hemostasis with success rate about 39%. In patients with uterine atony and placenta previa, the difference of hemostasis rate in groups had no statistically significant (P > 0.05). In patients with placenta accrete, the hemostasis rate in embolization group was higher than in others groups (P < 0.01). (4) The multivariate analysis found that scar uterus, placenta accrete and coagulation defects were the risk factors of failed hemotasis. The OR value respectively was 2.9 (95%CI: 1.1 - 7.6), 17.9 (95%CI: 5.6 - 56.3) and 16.2 (95%CI: 3.2 - 83.5). Embolization had some extent of protective effection (OR = 0.9, 95%CI: 0.8 - 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: (1) Five kinds of hemostatic surgeries were all effective. Though the success rate among groups did show statistical difference, pelvical arterial embolization has the comparative advantage of shorter operating time, less operating blood loss and higher success rate in placenta accrete. (2) Since scar uterus, placenta accrete and coagulation defects were the risk factors of failed hemostasis, sufficient preparation should be made for patients with these risk factors and the hemostatic surgeries should be choosed individually.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]