切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2022, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (01) : 87 -93. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2022.01.012

论著

先天性生殖器官异常孕妇的围生结局分析
王思, 胡青, 廖华, 王晓东, 余海燕()   
  • 收稿日期:2021-07-07 修回日期:2022-01-08 出版日期:2022-02-01
  • 通信作者: 余海燕

Analysis of perinatal outcomes of pregnant women with congenital anomaly of genital organ

Si Wang, Qing Hu, Hua Liao, Xiaodong Wang, Haiyan Yu()   

  • Received:2021-07-07 Revised:2022-01-08 Published:2022-02-01
  • Corresponding author: Haiyan Yu
  • Supported by:
    Sichuan Academic and Technical Leaders Training Support Fund(Office of Human Resources and Social Security of Sichuan 〔2017〕919-25)
引用本文:

王思, 胡青, 廖华, 王晓东, 余海燕. 先天性生殖器官异常孕妇的围生结局分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2022, 18(01): 87-93.

Si Wang, Qing Hu, Hua Liao, Xiaodong Wang, Haiyan Yu. Analysis of perinatal outcomes of pregnant women with congenital anomaly of genital organ[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2022, 18(01): 87-93.

目的

探讨先天性生殖器官异常孕妇的围生结局。

方法

选择2009年1月至2019年12月,于四川大学华西第二医院活产分娩的99 779例单胎妊娠孕妇为研究对象。根据是否合并先天性生殖器官异常,将其分为观察组(n=324,合并)及对照组(n=99 455,未合并)。回顾性分析2组孕妇的临床病例资料,总结观察组不同类型先天性生殖器官异常孕妇的围生结局特点。采用χ2检验及独立样本t检验,对2组孕妇妊娠期各并发症发生率、剖宫产率及新生儿出生体重等,进行统计学分析。本研究遵循的程序符合2013年修订的《世界医学协会赫尔辛基宣言》要求。

结果

①观察组孕妇最常见先天性生殖器官异常前3位依次为纵隔子宫、单角/残角子宫及弓形子宫,分别占35.2%(114/324)、26.2%(85/324)及13.9%(45/324)。包括既往妊娠次数在内,观察组孕妇共计妊娠571次,其中弓形子宫、纵隔子宫孕妇的自然流产率位列前2位,分别为38.5%(35/91)、28.6%(61/213);阴道畸形孕妇足月产率(70.0%),高于子宫畸形者(52.8%),并且差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.432、P=0.035)。②观察组孕妇早产、胎膜早破、胎位异常、胎盘早剥、胎儿生长受限(FGR)、胎盘黏连/植入、子宫破裂及剖宫产率分别为29.6%、29.3%、36.1%、5.9%、2.5%、21.0%、3.4%、78.7%,均分别高于对照组孕妇的9.8%、22.3%、5.7%、1.2%、1.0%、11.5%、1.5%、62.0%;而羊水过少率(0.9%)及新生儿出生体重[(2 913±652) g],则显著低于对照组的2.9%、(3 254±445) g,并且上述差异均有统计学意义(均为P<0.05)。2组孕妇前置胎盘、妊娠期高血压疾病(HDCP)、产后出血(PPH)及子宫切除率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

先天性生殖器官异常孕妇的母、胎围生期并发症发生风险高。提高该病孕妇的孕前及早孕期诊断率,加强围生期保健及处理,可改善其围生结局。

Objective

To investigate perinatal outcomes of pregnant women with congenital anomalies of genital organ.

Methods

From January 2009 to December 2019, a total of 99 779 cases of single pregnancy women who delivered live births in West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, were selected as research subjects. According to whether combined with congenital anomalies of genital organ or not, they were divided into observation group (n=324, combined) and control group (n=99 455, uncombined). Clinical data of two groups were retrospectively analyzed, and perinatal outcome of pregnant women in observation group were summarized. The incidence of complications during pregnancy, cesarean section rate and neonatal birth weight were statistically compared between two groups by chi-square test and independent-samples t test. The procedures followed in this study were in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki revised in 2013.

Results

① In observation group, top three most common congenital anomalies of genital organ of pregnant women were septate uterus, unicornuate/rudimentary horn uterus and arcuate uterus, accounting for 35.2%(114/324), 26.2%(85/324) and 13.9%(45/324), respectively. The pregnant women in observation group had a total of 571 pregnancies including previous pregnancies, the rates of spontaneous abortion of pregnant women with arcuate uterus and septate uterus were the top two, which were 38.5% (35/91) and 28.6% (61/213), respectively. The full term birth rate of pregnant women with vaginal anomalies (70.0%) was higher than that of pregnant women with uterine anomalies (52.8%), and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=4.432, P=0.035). ② The preterm birth rate, incidence of premature rupture of membranes, malpresentation, placental abruption, fetal growth restriction (FGR), placenta adhesions/accreta and uterine rupture, and cesarean section rate of pregnant women in observation group were 29.6%, 29.3%, 36.1%, 5.9%, 2.5%, 21.0%, 3.4%, 78.7%, respectively, which were statistically higher than those of 9.8%, 22.3%, 5.7%, 1.2%, 1.0%, 11.5%, 1.5%, 62.0% in control group, while the rate of oligohydramnios and neonatal birth weight were 0.9% and (2 913±652) g, which were significantly lower than those of 2.9% and (3 254±445) g in control group, and all the differences above were statistically significant (all P<0.05). There were no significant differences in rate of placenta previa, hypertensive disorder complicating pregnancy (HDCP) and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and hysterectomy rate between two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusions

Pregnant women with congenital anomalies of genital organ are at high risk of maternal and fetal perinatal complications. The pre-pregnancy and early pregnancy diagnosis rate of congenital anomalies of genital organ should be improved in pregnant women, and strengthening perinatal care and perinatal management can improve perinatal outcomes.

表1 不同类型先天性生殖器官异常孕妇围生结局及分娩方式比较[例数(%)]
表2 2组孕妇围生结局及剖宫产率比较[例数(%)]
表3 观察组孕妇妊娠情况比较[次数(%)]
[1]
Christiansen ME, Detti L. Clinically relevant female genital tract anomalies[J]. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 60(1): 18-26. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000258.
[2]
Passos IMPE, Britto RL. Diagnosis and treatment of müllerian malformations[J]. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 2020, 59(2): 183-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2020.01.003.
[3]
Turocy JM, Rackow BW. Uterine factor in recurrent pregnancy loss[J]. Semin Perinatol, 2019, 43(2): 74-79. DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2018.12.003.
[4]
Cahen-Peretz A, Sheiner E, Friger M, et al. The association between Müllerian anomalies and perinatal outcome[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2019, 32(1): 51-57. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1370703.
[5]
Fox NS, Roman AS, Stern EM, et al. Type of congenital uterine anomaly and adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2014, 27(9): 949-953. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2013.847082.
[6]
Letterie GS. Management of congenital uterine abnormalities[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2011, 23(1): 40-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.02.008.
[7]
Prior M, Richardson A, Asif S, et al. Outcome of assisted reproduction in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a prospective observational study[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2018, 51(1): 110-117. DOI: 10.1002/uog.18935.
[8]
Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies[J]. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(1): 2-7. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev264.
[9]
中华医学会妇产科学分会. 女性生殖器官畸形诊治的中国专家共识[J]. 中华妇产科杂志2015, 50(10): 729-733. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2015.10.002.
[10]
Knez J, Saridogan E, Van Den Bosch T, et al. ESHRE/ESGE female genital tract anomalies classification system-the potential impact of discarding arcuate uterus on clinical practice[J]. Hum Reprod, 2018, 33(4): 600-606. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey043.
[11]
Makrigiannakis A. Implantation in women with uterine congenital malformations[M]// Grimbizis GF, Campo R, Tarlatzis BC, et al. Female genital tract congenital malformations: classification, diagnosis and management. London: Springer, 2015: 29-34. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3.
[12]
Cahen-Peretz A, Walfisch A, Friger M, et a1. Maternal müllerian anomalies and future health of the offspring[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2017, 212: 20-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.02.010.
[13]
曹泽毅. 中华妇产科学[M]. 2版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2004: 706-708.
[14]
Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, et al. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review[J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2011, 17(6): 761-771. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmr028.
[15]
Olpin JD, Moeni A, Willmore RJ, et a1. MR imaging of Müllerian fusion anomalies[J]. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 2017, 25(3): 563-575. DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2017.03.008.
[16]
Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies[J]. Gynecol Surg, 2016, 13: 1-16. DOI: 10.1007/s10397-015-0909-1.
[17]
王姝, 邓姗, 朱兰, 等. 应用3D打印技术手术前诊断女性生殖道畸形附一例报告[J]. 中华妇产科杂志2017, 52(10): 708-710. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2017.10.013.
[18]
Pan HX, Liu P, Duan H, et al. Using 3D MRI can potentially enhance the ability of trained surgeons to more precisely diagnose Mullerian duct anomalies compared to MR alone[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2018, 228: 313-318. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.007.
[19]
El Hachem H, Crepaux V, May-Panloup P, et al. Recurrent pregnancy loss: current perspectives[J]. Int J Womens Health, 2017, 9: 331-345. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S100817.
[20]
Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. The pattern of pregnancy loss in women with congenital uterine anomalies and recurrent miscarriage[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2010, 20(3): 416-422. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.11.021.
[21]
Zhou H, Liu Y, Liu L, et al. Maternal pre-pregnancy risk factors for miscarriage from a prevention perspective: a cohort study in China[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2016, 206: 57-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.514.
[22]
Jones RK, Jerman J. Population group abortion rates and lifetime incidence of abortion: United States, 2008-2014[J]. Am J Public Health, 2017, 107(12): 1904-1909. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042.
[23]
Hiersch L, Yeoshoua E, Miremberg H, et al. The association between Mullerian anomalies and short-term pregnancy outcome[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2016, 29(16): 2573-2578. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1098613.
[24]
Takami M, Aoki S, Kurasawa K, et al. A classification of congenital uterine anomalies predicting pregnancy outcomes[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2014, 93(7): 691-697. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12400.
[25]
Venetis CA, Papadopoulos SP, Campo R, et al. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a Meta-analysis of comparative studies[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2014, 29(6): 665-683. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.006.
[26]
Karami M, Jenabi E. The association between Mullerian anomalies and IUGR: a Meta-analysis[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2019, 32(14): 2408-2411. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1432588.
[27]
Khazaei S, Jenabi E, Veisani Y. The association of Mullerian anomalies and placenta abruption: a Meta-analysis[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2019, 32(3): 512-516. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1379072.
[28]
Kroener L, Wang ET, Pisarska MD. Predisposing factors to abnormal first trimester placentation and the impact on fetal outcomes[J]. Semin Reprod Med, 2016, 34(1): 27-35. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1570029.
[29]
Shim S, Hur YM, Kim DH, et al. Evidence for no significant impact of Müllerian anomalies on reproductive outcomes of twin pregnancy in Korean women[J]. Twin Res Hum Genet, 2016, 19(2): 146-153. DOI: 10.1017/thg.2016.4.
[30]
DI Spiezio Sardo A, Spinelli M, DA Cunha Vieira M, et a1. Hysteroscopic treatment of Müllerian duct anomalies[J]. Minerva Ginecol, 2016, 68(2): 175-185.
[31]
Budden A, Abbott JA. The diagnosis and surgical approach of uterine septa[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2018, 25(2): 209-217. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.07.017.
[1] 杨皓媛, 龚杰, 邹青伟, 阮航. 哮喘孕妇的母婴不良妊娠结局研究现状[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 522-529.
[2] 陈甜甜, 王晓东, 余海燕. 双胎妊娠合并Gitelman综合征孕妇的妊娠结局及文献复习[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 559-568.
[3] 居晓庆, 金蕴洁, 王晓燕. 剖宫产术后瘢痕子宫患者再次妊娠阴道分娩发生子宫破裂的影响因素分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 575-581.
[4] 顾娟, 孙擎擎, 胡方方, 曹义娟, 祁玉娟. 子宫内膜容受性检测改善胚胎反复种植失败患者妊娠结局的临床应用[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 582-587.
[5] 王蓓蓓, 董启秀, 郗红燕, 于庆云, 张丽君, 式光. 早孕期孕妇药物流产失败的影响因素分析与构建相关预测模型及其对药物流产成功的预测价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 588-594.
[6] 陈絮, 詹玉茹, 王纯华. 孕妇ABO血型联合甲状腺功能检测对预测妊娠期糖尿病的临床价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 604-610.
[7] 周梦玲, 薛志伟, 周淑. 妊娠合并子宫肌瘤的孕期变化及其与不良妊娠结局的关系[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 611-615.
[8] 冉晨曦, 沈如飞, 廖明钰, 廖倩, 周玲, 张玉玲, 隆敏. 垂体瘤孕妇的诊治与围分娩期管理[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(04): 487-491.
[9] 胡金科, 钟文. 妊娠期输尿管结石的处理与转归[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 377-381.
[10] 王跃, 唐敏, 李鹏超, 吕强. 妊娠期膀胱副神经节瘤伴严重出血一例报告[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 410-411.
[11] 杨聚荣. 透析患者妊娠的管理[J]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2023, 12(05): 300-300.
[12] 张郁妍, 胡滨, 张伟红, 徐楣, 朱慧, 羊馨玥, 刘海玲. 妊娠中期心血管超声参数与肝功能的相关性及对不良妊娠结局的预测价值[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 499-504.
[13] 王欣, 刘琳, 闻哲嘉, 刘春玲, 张弘, 吕芳. 妊娠前应激暴露对小鼠后续妊娠的影响[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 431-437.
[14] 刘雪云, 范颖, 姚爱军, 张胜苗, 吕亚妮, 张冰清, 张晓宇, 刘恒. 基于微信小程序的个体化、全程护理干预对孕妇孕期体重及分娩结局的影响[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 455-460.
[15] 邹艳丽, 栾文杰, 王淑娟, 刘亚琴, 初桂芝, 李松洋, 王好玲, 张锦婷, 姜鑫, 栾泽东. 早孕期胎儿右位主动脉弓的产前超声诊断学特征[J]. 中华诊断学电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 227-232.
阅读次数
全文


摘要