论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较宫颈环状电切术(loop electrosurgical excision procedure,LEEP)和宫颈冷刀锥切术(cold-knifeconization,CKC)的疗效及对患者生活质量的影响。方法:对该院2006年宫颈病变门诊收治的CINⅢ患者,依据其志愿采取LEEP或CKC治疗并追踪随访,评价两种术式。结果:两种术式的术后各种并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(LEEP手术组为5.80%,CKC组为5.26%);治愈率差异无统计学意义(LEEP手术组为95.65%,CKC组为98.24%);生活质量方面LEEP手术组优于CKC组,术后SF-36生活质量评分差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:对于CINⅢ患者,LEEP手术组与CKC组治愈率及主要不良事件的发生率差异无统计学意义;成本分析显示,LEEP术具有不住院、花费少的特点;SF-36生活质量评分证实在生活质量方面LEEP组优于CKC组,差异有统计学意义,表明LEEP术是处理CINⅢ的常用和理想的治疗方法。
Objective: To compare the efficacy of cervical loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and cervical cold-knife coagulation (CKC) and its impact on the quality of life of patients. Methods: CIN Ⅲ patients admitted to our hospital for cervical lesions in 2006 were evaluated by LEEP or CKC treatment and follow-up. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity between the two surgical procedures (5.80% in LEEP group and 5.26% in CKC group). There was no significant difference in the cure rates between the two groups (95.65% in LEEP group, CKC group 98.24%); quality of life LEEP surgery group was better than CKC group, postoperative SF-36 quality of life score difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in the cure rate and the incidence of major adverse events between LEEP and CKC patients in CIN III patients. The cost analysis shows that LEEP is not hospitalized and costs less. SF-36 quality of life score is Quality of life LEEP group is superior to CKC group, the difference was statistically significant, indicating that LEEP surgery is the common and ideal treatment for CIN Ⅲ.