论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨应用冷刀锥切术与宫颈环形电切术治疗宫颈病变的临床价值。方法 63例宫颈上皮内瘤变患者,按照手术方法不同分为宫颈环形电切术组(31例)和冷刀锥切术组(32例),比较两组临床治疗效果。结果宫颈环形电切术组的手术时间、术中出血量及切口愈合时间分别为(16.3±1.2)min、(11.10±0.95)ml、(21.2±3.7)d,均显著优于冷刀锥切术组的(25.6±1.2)min、(28.90±0.29)ml、(36.6±3.8)d(P<0.05);两组的治愈、残留以及复发率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后并发症宫颈环形电切术组少于冷刀锥切术组(P<0.05)。结论冷刀锥切术、宫颈环形电切术治疗宫颈病变均有良好的效果,但是相对于冷刀锥切术而言宫颈环形电切术具有手术时间短和费用低等优点,具有临床应用价值。
Objective To investigate the clinical value of cold knife conization and cervical ring excision for cervical lesions. Methods Sixty-three patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia were divided into two groups according to the surgical methods: annular cervical resection (31 cases) and cold-knife conization (32 cases). The clinical effects were compared between the two groups. Results The operation time, intraoperative blood loss and wound healing time were (16.3 ± 1.2) min and (11.10 ± 0.95) ml and (21.2 ± 3.7) days, respectively, which were significantly better than that of cold knife (25.6 ± 1.2) min, (28.90 ± 0.29) ml and (36.6 ± 3.8) d respectively (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in cure, residual rate and recurrence rate (P> 0.05) ; Postoperative complications of cervical ring resection group less than cold knife conization group (P <0.05). Conclusions Cold-knife conization and cervical circumcision are effective in treating cervical lesions. However, compared with cold-knife conization, cervical loop resection has the advantages of short operation time and low cost, and has clinical value .