腹腔镜与开腹子宫次全切除术的对比研究(1)
 |
| 第1页 |
参见附件(1983KB，2页)。
[摘要] 目的 比较观察腹腔镜与开腹子宫次全切除术的疗效及对卵巢功能的影响。方法2009年7月～2011年1月，104例行子宫次全切除术者随机分为腹腔镜组和开腹组，每组52例，比较观察两组的手术效果及对卵巢功能的影响。结果 腹腔镜组的手术时间、术中出血量、排气时间及下床活动时间均明显短于开腹组(P<0.05)。两组治疗后FSH、LH水平明显升高，E2水平明显降低，与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；并且，腹腔镜组治疗后FSH、LH水平明显高于开腹组，E2水平明显低于开腹组(P<0.05)。结论 腹腔镜下次全子宫切除术效果明显优于开腹术，并且能够维持卵巢功能，值得临床推广应用。
[关键词] 子宫次全切除术；腹腔镜；卵巢功能
[中图分类号] R713.4+2 [文献标识码] B [文章编号] 1673-9701(2011)25-34-02
The Comparison Study of Laparoscopic and Abdominal Subtotal Hysterectomy
TANG Quan
Department ofObstetrics and Gynecology,Yuhuan CountyPeople’s Hospital in Zhejiang Province，Yuhuan 317600, China
[Abstract] Objective To compare and analyze the clinical effects and ovarian function between laparoscopic and abdominal subtotal hysterectomy. MethodsOne hundred and four cases operated with subtotal hysterectomy from July 2009 to January 2011 were randomly classified into laparoscopic group and abdominal group .The clinical effects and ovarian function were observed and compared. Results The operation time, bleeding quantity, aerofluxus time and bed activity time were significantly shorter than those in abdominal group (P<0.05). Compared with pretreatment, FSH and LHlevels were significantly decreased(P<0.05), E2 levels were significantly decreased(P<0.05)after treatment in both groups. Moreover, the FSH, LH levels in laparoscopic group were significantly lower than those in abdominal group, E2 levels were significantly higher than those in abdominal group(P<0.05). Conclusion. Compared with abdominal subtotal hysterectomy, laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy has better operation effect and can maintain ovarian function, which can be applied in clinical treatment.
[Key words] Subtotal hysterectomy; Laparoscopic; Ovarian function
子宫次全切除术是治疗妇科疾病的常用术式之一，近年来，随着腹腔镜技术的快速发展，医学进入微创的手术时代，由于创伤小、出血少、恢复快等优点给广大患者带来福音[1]。2009年7月~2011年1月，我院采用腹腔镜子宫次全切除术对52例患者进行治疗，并与52例传统开腹子宫次全切除术进行比较，现报道如下。
1对象与方法
1.1研究对象
2009年7月~2011年1月在我院进行子宫次全切除术的子宫良性病变患者104例，术前常规行宫颈液基细胞学检查，术后均经病理证实，排除子宫颈和子宫内膜恶性病变。所有患者随机分为两组，观察组52例，年龄38～50岁，平均(44.1±9.6)岁；对照组52例，年龄39～51岁，平均(44.3±9.8)岁，两组一般资料比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
1 ......
您现在查看是摘要介绍页，详见PDF附件(1983KB，2页)。