Chinese Medical E-ournals Database
Adv Search
中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版)

Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition) ›› 2020, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (03): 278 -287. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2020.03.005

Special Issue: ；

Original Article

Analysis of influencing factors and pregnancy outcomes of trial of labor after cesarean section

Zhenyu Chen1, Jingli Sun1,†(), Xiaoming Chen1, Wan Zhong1, Jiaxi Jin1   

  1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heping Branch of General Hospital of Northern War Zone, Shenyang 110003, Liaoning Province, China
  • Received:2019-11-12 Revised:2020-01-09 Published:2020-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Jingli Sun
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Sun Jingli, Email:
  • Supported by:
    Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province(20180551133)
HTML ( ) PDF ( )
Objective

To explore pregnancy outcomes of trial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC) and influencing factors of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC).

Methods

A total of 193 pregnant women with one prior cesarean section and TOLAC in Heping Branch of General Hospital of Northern War Zone from January 2015 to June 2019 were selected as research subjects. All subjects were divided into successful TOLAC group (n=122, by VBAC) and failed TOLAC group (n=71, by repeated cesarean section after failure of TOLAC) according to the final delivery mode. According to the time of accepting TOLAC, successful TOLAC group were further divided into pre-implementing subgroup (n=25, before implement of TOLAC from January 2015 to December 2016) and post-implementing subgroup (n=97, after implement of TOLAC from January 2017 to June 2019). The clinical data such as interval time between this delivery and last cesarean delivery, Bishop score of cervix at admission, spontaneous onset of labor, birth weight of neonate, etc. were reviewed retrospectively. Univariate analysis was conducted on influencing factors of VBAC by independent-samples t test, chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test. Then, combined with the existing research results, clinical experiences and univariate analysis results, 9 possible influencing factors of VBAC were analyzed by multivariate unconditional logistic regression analysis. The pregnant outcomes between successful TOLAC group and failed TOLAC group, between pre-implementing subgroup and post-implementing subgroup were compared by independent-samples t test and chi-square test. The study was approved by the institutional research ethics committee of Heping Branch of General Hospital of Northern War Zone (Approval No. 202H2019PJ039). There were no significant differences on maternal age, constituent ratio of education levels, gravidity and parity between successful TOLAC group and failed TOLAC group (P>0.05).

Results

①From January 2015 to June 2019, the TOLAC rate in our hospital was 5.01% (193/3 851) and the VBAC rate was 63.21% (122/193). After initiatively implementing TOLAC from January 2017, the rate of VBAC increased from 47.17% (25/53, during January 2015 to December 2016) to 69.29% (97/140, during January 2017 to June 2019), and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=8.086, P=0.004). ②Gestational weight gain, body mass index (BMI) before delivery, gestational age at delivery, interval time between this delivery and last cesarean delivery, rate of macrosomia and birth weight of neonate in VBAC group all were lower or shorter than those in failed TOLAC group, while Bishop score of cervix at admission, rate of spontaneous labor, and rate of preterm delivery in VBAC group were higher than those in failed TOLAC group, and all the differences between two groups for the above indicators were statistically significant (P<0.05). ③Multivariate unconditional logistic regression analysis of 9 possible influencing factors of VBAC showed that Bishop score of cervix at admission >6 scores (OR=2.806, 95%CI: 1.290-6.105, P=0.009), spontaneous labor (OR=2.650, 95%CI: 1.137-6.175, P=0.024), and birth weight of neonate <3 750 g (OR=2.928, 95%CI: 1.193-7.185, P=0.019) were independent influencing factors of VBAC. While the others all were not independent influencing factors of VBAC. ④Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) volume and rate of PPH in VBAC group were higher than those in failed TOLAC group, while hospital stays after delivery and hospitalization expenses in VBAC group were lower than those in failed TOLAC group, and all the differences were statistically significant (t=12.991, P<0.001; χ2=4.555, P=0.033; t=-11.487, P<0.001; t=-14.774, P<0.001). No maternal and newborn deaths occurred in the 193 cases of TOLAC. ⑤Among pregnant women in successful TOLAC group, gestational weight gain, BMI before delivery, gestational age at delivery, birth weight of the neonate, rates of using oxytocin during labor, analgesia and operative vaginal delivery, and duration of first stage labor, duration of total labor, and hospital stays after delivery in pre-implementing subgroup all were lower or less or shorter than those in post-implementing subgroup, while Bishop score of cervix at admission, rates of spontaneous labor, preterm and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were higher than those in post-implementing subgroup, and all the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusions

The safety of TOLAC and rate of VBAC can be improved by taking corresponding measures and standardized management. Favorable cervix, spontaneous onset of labor, birth weight of neonate <3 750 g are independent influencing factors of VBAC.

Key words: Vaginal birth after cesarean, Cesarean section, repeat, Trial of labor after cesarean section, Pregnancy outcome, Cervical ripening, Influencing factors, Puerpera
表1 本院2015年1月至2019年6月接受TOLAC及VBAC产妇情况与VBAC率等比较
年份(年) 分娩产妇总数 有剖宫产术分娩史产妇[例数(%)]b TOLAC[例数(%)]c VBAC[例数(%)]d VBAC率(%)e VBAC降低总剖宫产术分娩率(%)f
2015 4 832 577(11.94) 15(2.60) 6(1.04) 40.00 0.12
2016 8 585 934(10.88) 38(4.07) 19(2.03) 50.00 0.22
2017 7 399 990(13.38) 47(4.75) 28(2.83) 59.57 0.38
2018 6 922 871(12.58) 56(6.42) 39(4.48) 69.64 0.56
2019 a 3 950 479(12.13) 37(7.72) 30(6.26) 81.08 0.76
合计 31 688 3 851(12.15) 193(5.01) 122(3.17) 63.21 0.39
表2 TOLAC成功组与TOLAC失败组产妇一般临床资料比较
组别 例数 年龄(岁，±s) 学历[例数(%)] 孕次(次，±s) 产次(次，±s)
大专及以上 高中及以下
TOLAC成功组 122 32.7±4.1 85(69.7) 37(30.3) 2.7±0.8 1.05±0.22
TOLAC失败组 71 33.1±3.7 52(73.2) 19(26.8) 2.8±0.9 1.03±0.17
检验值 t＝－0.644 χ2＝0.277 t＝－1.488 t＝0.703
P值 0.520 0.598 0.138 0.483
表3 TOLAC成功组与TOLAC失败组VBAC影响因素的单因素分析
组别 例数 孕前BMI(kg/m2，±s) 孕期体重增加值(kg，±s) 分娩前BMI(kg/m2，±s) 阴道分娩史[例数(%)] 本次妊娠距前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间[月，M(P25～P75)] 入院时宫颈评分[分，M(P25～P75)] 子宫前壁下段肌层厚度(cm，±s) 妊娠期高血压疾病[例数(%)]
TOLAC成功组 122 22.0±3.2 13.4±5.2 27.0±3.2 5(4.1) 56.5(36.0～84.0) 6.0(4.0～7.0) 0.21±0.06 7(5.7)
TOLAC失败组 71 22.6±3.2 15.6±5.8 28.4±3.0 2(2.8) 72.0(40.0～108.0) 3.0(2.0～4.0) 0.20±0.05 1(1.4)
检验值 t＝－1.250 t＝－2.785 t＝－2.910 χ2＝0.004 a Z＝－2.205 Z＝－7.101 t＝1.475 χ2＝1.168 a
P值 0.213 0.006 0.004 0.950 0.027 <0.001 0.142 0.280
组别 例数 妊娠期糖尿病[例数(%)] 胎膜早破[例数(%)] 自然临产[例数(%)] 分娩孕龄(周，±s) 早产[例数(%)] 巨大儿[例数(%)] 新生儿出生体重(g，±s)
TOLAC成功组 122 9(7.4) 33(27.0) 108(88.5) 38.5±1.8 16(13.1) 2(1.6) 3 219±463
TOLAC失败组 71 8(11.3) 20(28.2) 41(57.7) 39.2±1.4 3(4.2) 9(12.7) 3 480±462
检验值 χ2＝0.846 χ2＝0.028 χ2＝24.156 t＝－3.002 χ2＝3.996 χ2＝8.222 a t＝－3.770
P值 0.358 0.867 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 0.004 <0.001
表4 VBAC影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析的变量含义及赋值情况
自变量/因变量 变量名 赋值情况
是否为VBAC y y＝0表示非VBAC，y＝1表示VBAC
早产 x1 x1＝0表示足月产，x1＝1表示早产
入院时宫颈评分 x2 x2＝0表示入院时宫颈评分≤6分，x2＝1表示入院时宫颈评分>6分
是否为自然临产 x3 x3＝0表示引产，x3＝1表示自然临产
新生儿出生体重 x4 x4＝0表示新生儿出生体重≥3 750 g，x4＝1表示新生儿出生体重<3 750 g
是否分娩巨大儿 x5 x5＝0表示非巨大儿，x5＝1表示巨大儿
分娩孕龄 x6 x6表示实际分娩孕龄
孕期体重增加值 x7 x7表示孕期体重增加值
分娩前BMI x8 x8表示分娩前BMI
本次妊娠距前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间 x9 x9表示本次妊娠距前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间
表5 VBAC影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析
影响因素 B SE Wald值 P值 OR值 OR值95%CI
早产 0.760 0.945 0.647 0.421 2.138 0.336～13.624
入院时宫颈评分>6分 1.032 0.397 6.771 0.009 2.806 1.290～6.105
自然临产 0.974 0.432 5.096 0.024 2.650 1.137～6.175
新生儿出生体重<3 750 g 1.074 0.458 5.501 0.019 2.928 1.193～7.185
巨大儿 －2.218 1.102 3.695 0.055 0.120 0.014～1.042
分娩孕龄 －0.002 0.162 0.002 0.991 0.998 0.726～1.372
孕期体重增加值 －0.016 0.033 0.217 0.641 0.985 0.922～1.051
分娩前BMI －0.082 0.059 1.952 0.162 0.921 0.820～1.034
本次妊娠距前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间 －0.564 0.354 2.538 0.111 1.758 0.878～3.519
表6 TOLAC成功组与TOLAC失败组母婴妊娠结局比较
组别 例数 新生儿窒息[例数(%)] 新生儿胎粪吸入综合征[例数(%)] 新生儿Apgar评分(分，±s) 新生儿转入NICU[例数(%)] 羊水性状[例数(%)]
清亮 粪染
TOLAC成功组 122 1(0.8) 1(0.8) 9.9±0.6 13(10.7) 102(83.6) 20(16.4)
TOLAC失败组 71 0(0) 0(0) 10.0±0.0 4(5.6) 60(84.5) 11(15.5)
检验值 — — t＝－1.301 χ2＝1.409 χ2＝0.027
P值 0.444 0.444 0.196 0.235 0.869
组别 例数 PPH量(mL，±s) PPH[例数(%)] 输血[例数(%)] 产褥期疾病[例数(%)] 产后住院时间(d，±s) 总住院费用(元，±s)
TOLAC成功组 122 429.0±101.7 17(13.9) 1(0.8) 0(0) 2.7±0.6 7 330±2 074
TOLAC失败组 71 280.3±94.9 3(4.2) 0(0) 1(1.4) 3.8±0.6 12 232±2 527
检验值 t＝12.991 χ2＝4.555 — — t＝－11.487 t＝－14.774
P值 <0.001 0.033 0.444 0.368 <0.001 <0.001
表7 TOLAC成功组中，开展前亚组与开展后亚组VBAC产妇临床资料比较
组别 例数 年龄(岁，±s) 学历[例数(%)] 孕次(次，±s) 产次(次，±s) 孕前BMI(kg/m2，±s) 孕期体重增加值(kg，±s) 分娩前BMI(kg/m2，±s)
大专及以上 高中及以下
开展前亚组 25 32.1±3.9 15(60.0) 10(40.0) 2.6±0.8 1.1±0.3 21.6±4.0 10.9±4.9 25.8±3.7
开展后亚组 97 32.9±4.1 70(72.2) 27(27.8) 2.7±0.8 1.0±0.2 22.1±3.0 14.0±5.1 27.4±3.0
检验值 t＝－0.860 χ2＝1.392 t＝－0.107 t＝0.795 t＝－0.622 t＝－2.765 t＝－2.178
P值 0.391 0.238 0.915 0.428 0.535 0.007 0.031
组别 例数 阴道分娩史[例数(%)] 本次妊娠距前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间[月，M(P25～P75)] 入院时宫颈评分[分，M(P25～P75)] 胎膜早破[例数(%)] 妊娠期高血压疾病[例数(%)] 妊娠期糖尿病[例数(%)] 子宫前壁下段肌层厚度(cm，±s) 自然临产[例数(%)]
开展前亚组 25 2(8.0) 56.0(36.0～72.0) 7.0(5.5～10.0) 6(24.0) 1(4.0) 2(8.0) 0.23±0.06 25(100.0)
开展后亚组 97 3(3.1) 60.0(37.0～84.0) 6.0(4.0～7.0) 27(27.8) 6(6.2) 7(7.2) 0.22±0.06 83(85.6)
检验值 — Z＝－0.914 Z＝3.100 χ2＝0.148 — — 0.756 —
P值 0.271 0.361 0.002 0.700 0.999 0.999 0.452 0.043
表8 TOLAC成功组中，开展前亚组与开展后亚组VBAC产妇的母婴结局比较
组别 例数a 分娩孕龄(周，±s) 早产[例数(%)] 新生儿出生体重(g，±s) 羊水粪染[例数(%)] 新生儿Apgar评分(分，±s) 新生儿转入NICU[例数(%)] 产程中使用缩宫素[例数(%)]
开展前亚组 25 37.8±2.1 7(28.0) 3 036±538 1(4.0) 9.96±0.20 5(20.0) 0(0)
开展后亚组 97 38.6±1.7 9(9.3) 3 267±432 19(19.6) 9.93±0.62 8(8.2) 22(22.7)
检验值 t＝－2.112 χ2＝6.114 t＝－2.260 χ2＝3.524 t＝0.257 χ2＝4.855 —
P值 0.037 0.013 0.026 0.072 0.798 0.028 0.007
组别 例数a 分娩镇痛[例数(%)] 阴道助产[例数(%)] 会阴侧切[例数(%)] 产程时间(min，±s)
第一 第二 第三 总产程
开展前亚组 25 3(12.0) 0(0) 21(84.0) 279.6±117.3 48.0±41.3 8.6±3.4 336.2±127.9
开展后亚组 97 37(38.1) 14(14.4) 88(90.7) 376.9±164.3 57.3±46.7 8.3±3.7 442.5±176.5
检验值 χ2＝6.165 — χ2＝0.943 t＝－2.780 t＝－0.913 t＝0.422 t＝－2.823
P值 0.013 0.043 0.331 0.006 0.363 0.674 0.006
组别 例数a PPH量(mL，±s) PPH[例数(%)] 输血[例数(%)] 子宫破裂[例数(%)] 产后住院时间(d，±s)
开展前亚组 25 399.6±70.7 3(12.0) 0(0) 0(0) 2.4±0.5
开展后亚组 97 404.6±115.9 14(14.4) 1(1.0) 1(1.0) 2.8±0.7
检验值 t＝－0.207 χ2＝0.098 － － t＝－2.993
P值 0.836 0.754 0.999 0.999 0.003
[1]
侯磊，李光辉，邹丽颖，等. 全国剖宫产率及剖宫产指征构成比调查的多中心研究[J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2014, 49(10): 728-735. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5675x.2014.10.003.
[2]
中华医学会妇产科学分会产科学组. 剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道分娩管理的专家共识(2016)[J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2016, 51(8): 561-564. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567X.2016.08.001.
[3]
刘兴会，漆洪波. 难产[M]. 北京：人民卫生出版社，2015: 151-152.
[4]
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for the prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage [M]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2012: 3.
[5]
谢幸，孔北华，段涛. 妇产科学[M]. 9版. 北京：人民卫生出版社，2018: 137.
[6]
Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM, et al. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 203(4): 326.e1-326.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.058.
[7]
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin No.115: Vaginal birth after pervious cesarean delivery[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 116(2 Pt 1): 450-463. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eeb251.
[8]
Hauk L. Planning for labor and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: guidelines from the AAFP[J]. Am Fam Physician, 2015, 91(3): 197-198.
[9]
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth. Number 155 (Replaces guideline Number 147), February 2005[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2005, 89(3): 319-331. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.03.015.
[10]
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Birth after previous cesarean birth, in Green-Top Guideline No.45[M]. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2007: 1-17.
[11]
Haumonte JB, Raylet M, Christophe M, et al. French validation and adaptation of the Grobman nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery[J]. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod, 2018, 47(3): 127-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.12.002.
[12]
Attanasio LB, Paterno MT. Correlates of trial of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean in the United States[J]. J Womens Health (Larchmt), 2019, 28(9): 1302-1312. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7270.
[13]
Fishel Bartal M, Sibai BM, Ilan H, et al. Trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) in women with premature rupture of membranes[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2019, 17: 1-7. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1566312.
[14]
Mooney SS, Hiscock R, Clarke ID, et al. Estimating success of vaginal birth after caesarean section in a regional Australian population: validation of a prediction model[J]. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 2019, 59(1): 66-70. DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12809.
[15]
Kiwan R, Al Qahtani N. Outcome of vaginal birth after cesarean section: a retrospective comparative analysis of spontaneous versus induced labor in women with one previous cesarean section[J]. Ann Afr Med, 2018, 17(3): 145-150. DOI: 10.4103/aam.aam_54_17.
[16]
Hehir MP, Mackie A, Robson MS. Simplified and standardized intrapartum management can yield high rates of successful VBAC in spontaneous labor[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2017, 30(12): 1504-1508. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1220522.
[17]
Kruit H, Wilkman H, Tekay A, et al. Induction of labor by Foley catheter compared with spontaneous onset of labor after previous cesarean section: a cohort study[J]. J Perinatol, 2017, 37(7): 787-792. DOI: 10.1038/jp.2017.50.
[18]
屈在卿，马润玫，肖虹，等. 剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道试产孕妇的妊娠结局分析[J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2016, 51(10): 748-753. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567X.2016.10.008.
[19]
倪晓田，单震丽，阮昇明，等. 规范化剖宫产后阴道试产478例临床分析[J]. 现代妇产科进展，2018, 27(2): 115-117, 121. DOI: 10.13283/j.cnki.xdfckjz.2018.02.008.
[20]
屈在卿，杨明辉，杜明钰，等. 高龄孕产妇剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道分娩的妊娠结局分析[J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2017, 52(8): 521-525. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567X.2017.08.004.
[21]
韩冰，陈友国，赵亚丹，等. 影响剖宫产后再孕妇女选择分娩方式的因素[J]. 生殖医学杂志，2018, 27(11): 1112-1119. DO1: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3845.2018.11.013.
[22]
伍绍文，卢颖州，王珊珊，等. 剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道分娩的相关因素分析[J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2016, 51(8) : 576-580. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567X.2016.08.005.
[23]
Khan B, Deeba F, Bashir R, et al. Outcome of trial of scar in patients with previous caesarean section[J]. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad, 2016, 28(3): 587-590.
[24]
伍绍文，鲁艺斐，赵海平，等. 中国部分地区剖宫产后阴道分娩的影响因素研究[J]. 中国计划生育学杂志，2016, 24(11): 734-738. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-8189.2016.11.
[25]
Kalok A, Zabil SA, Jamil MA, et al. Antenatal scoring system in predicting the success of planned vaginal birth following one previous caesarean section[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2018, 38(3): 339-343. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2017.1355896.
[26]
Patel MD, Maitra N, Patel PK, et al. Predicting successful trial of labor after cesarean delivery: evaluation of two scoring systems [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol India, 2018, 68(4): 276-282. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-017-1031-2.
[27]
Lindblad Wollmann C, Ahlberg M, Saltvedt S, et al. Risk of repeat cesarean delivery in women undergoing trial of labor: a population-based cohort study[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2018, 97(12): 1524-1529. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13447.
[28]
Micek M, Kosinska-Kaczynska K, Godek B, et al. Birth after a previous cesarean section- what is most important in making a decision? [J]. Neuro Endocrinol Lett, 2014, 35(8): 718-723.
[29]
伍绍文，何电，张为远. 产时干预对剖宫产术后阴道分娩母婴结局的影响[J]. 中华医学杂志，2017, 97(7): 512-516. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2017.07.008.
[1] Xialin Li, Fang He. Risk assessment and early warning system for postpartum hemorrhage[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 498-503.
[2] Ziyang Liu, Jianjian Cui, Yin Zhao. Current research status on obstetric disseminated intravascular coagulation and its scoring system[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 511-518.
[3] Fanying Zeng, Jie Ruan, Xinghui Liu, Guolin He. Current status of perinatal medicine advances under the new reproductive situation and coping strategies in prenatal care[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 519-524.
[4] Xiaofei Li, Hongli Liu, Qiuling Shi, Jing Tian, Li Li, Hongbo Qi, Xin Luo. A prospective randomized controlled study of low intensity focused ultrasound uterine involution treatment for prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage in natural childbirth women[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 534-539.
[5] Yu Gong, Yuan Liao, Mei Shang. Influencing factors and prediction model for recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after TACE[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 13(06): 818-824.
[6] Zongjie Chen, Tiansong Hu. Analysis of influencing factors of bile leakage after treatment in patients with liver trauma and rupture[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 13(06): 836-840.
[7] Huiling He, Zubin Lu, Jiali Feng, Shengqiang Liang. Effect of preoperative peripheral blood NLR and PLR on postoperative colon cancer liver metastasis[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 13(05): 682-687.
[8] Beibei Wang, Zhenyi Cui, Jing Wang, Hanyan Wang, Hongzhi Lv, Xiuting Li. Development and Validation of postoperative anemia prediction model in elderly patients with intertro-chanteric fracture[J]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2024, 10(06): 355-362.
[9] Guibin Fang, Jin Xiao, Guangtao Fu, Qiujian Zheng. Factors affecting walking ability in elderly patients with hip fractures one year after surgery[J]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2024, 10(05): 273-280.
[10] Liang Shan, Yi Liu, Tao Yu, Li Xu. The psychological resilience status and influencing factors of elderly patients with femoral neck fractures after surgery[J]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2024, 10(05): 294-300.
[11] Ruhai Wang, Shen Wang, Min Zhang, Chun Li, Chao Han, Qiang Yu, Haicheng Hu, Xizhen Li. Analysis of influencing factors of short-term mortality risk in patients with severe traumatic brain injury after decompressive craniectomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Brain Diseases and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2024, 14(05): 285-291.
[12] Yunhe Hu, Yuzhuo Zhou, Ruiying Fu, Fan Yu, Aidong Li. Influencing factors and management strategies for GB1 group hospitalization expenses under the CHS-DRG payment system[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(06): 568-574.
[13] Huihui Yu, Zongzhi Yin. Gastric perforation during pregnancy[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2024, 13(04): 209-213.
[14] Shan Lu, Yunshan Yao, Seni Liao, Zien Chen, Yijian Zhang, Jianhao Lan, Wei Wei, Yanyang Liu, Yanhong Chen, Duijin Chen. Clinical study of 100 cases of suspected pregnancy complicated with acute appendicitis[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2024, 13(04): 214-219.
[15] Xiaoyun Huang, Yaji Yao. Factors influencing the career longevity of pre-hospital emergency doctors and proposed countermeasures[J]. Chinese Journal of Hygiene Rescue(Electronic Edition), 2024, 10(05): 281-285.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Copyright © Chinese Medical Association, Chinese Medical Multimedia Press  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号