论文部分内容阅读
目的分析异常子宫出血行宫腔镜下电切术以及宫腔镜下刮宫术治疗的效果以及病因检出率。方法选取2013年12月-2016年12月该院收治的100例异常子宫出血患者作为研究对象(均有B超提示子宫内膜增厚或宫腔占位考虑子宫内膜息肉可能),按入院顺序随机分成电切组和刮宫组,每组各50例。电切组患者在宫腔镜下实施电切术,刮宫组患者在宫腔镜下实施刮宫术,对比两组手术情况(手术时间和住院时间)、病因检出率及手术效果。结果刮宫组患者手术时间比电切组患者短,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组患者的住院时间、病因检出率比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05);电切组治疗总有效率明显高于刮宫组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在异常子宫出血的临床诊治中,宫腔镜下电切术和宫腔镜下刮宫术相比较,病因检出率两者相似,但在治疗效果上前者更具优势,可根据患者实际情况,优先考虑采取宫腔镜下电切术。
Objective To analyze the effect of hysteroscopic resection and hysteroscopic curettage in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding and the detection rate of etiology. Methods From December 2013 to December 2016, 100 patients with abnormal uterine bleeding admitted to the hospital were enrolled in this study (both B-ultrasound suggested endometrial thickening or intrauterine occupancy considering endometrial polyps). All patients were admitted to hospital The order was randomly divided into electric cutting group and curettage group, each group of 50 cases. The patients in the resection group underwent hysteroscopic resection. The patients in the curettage group underwent hysteroscopy under hysteroscopy. The operative conditions (operation time and hospital stay), the detection rate of the disease and the surgical effect were compared between the two groups. Results The curettage time of curettage group was shorter than that of the resection group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the time of hospitalization and the detection rate of the cause (all P> 0.05) The total effective rate of treatment group was significantly higher than curettage group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion In the clinical diagnosis and treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding, hysteroscopic resection and hysteroscopic curettage compared to the detection rate of the two similar, but in the treatment of the former more advantages, according to the actual situation of patients , Give priority to taking hysteroscopic resection.