论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较分析腹腔镜子宫全切术与经腹部子宫全切术临床效果。方法:采用回顾性分析的方法,选取我院在2013年1月1日至2014年1月1日治疗的共80名子宫全切术患者,根据治疗方式不同分为实验组和对照组,实验组为腹腔镜子宫全切术患者40名,对照组为经腹部子宫全切术患者40名,比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、住院时间和术后病率,对临床效果进行对比分析。结果:实验组术中出血量(125.55±37.24)ml比对照组(181.01±28.89)ml明显减少,两组术后肛门排气时间分别为(22.47±7.14)h、(31.52±6.34)h,住院时间分别为(5.05±1.23)d、(8.19±2.37)d,术后病率分别为3.89%、11.26%,实验组均比对照组低,两组比较有显著性差异,p<0.05;实验组与对照组手术时间无明显差异,p>0.05。结论:腹腔镜子宫全切术比传统经腹部子宫全切术临床效果好,具有术后恢复快、创伤小、患者疼痛轻等特点,值得临床推广应用。
Objective: To comparatively analyze the clinical effect of laparoscopic hysterectomy and transabdominal hysterectomy. Methods: A total of 80 hysterectomy patients treated in our hospital from January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different treatment methods, the patients were divided into experimental group and control group. The experiment 40 patients underwent laparoscopic total hysterectomy and 40 patients underwent total hysterectomy in the control group. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative anal exhaust time, hospital stay and postoperative disease were compared Rate, the clinical effect of comparative analysis. Results: The bleeding volume in the experimental group (125.55 ± 37.24) ml was significantly lower than that in the control group (181.01 ± 28.89) ml. The anal exhaust time in the two groups were (22.47 ± 7.14) h and (31.52 ± 6.34) h, respectively The hospital stay was (5.05 ± 1.23) d and (8.19 ± 2.37) days, respectively. The postoperative morbidity rates were 3.89% and 11.26% respectively. The experimental group was lower than the control group. There was a significant difference between the two groups (p <0.05) The experimental group and control group no significant difference in operation time, p> 0.05. Conclusion: Laparoscopic hysterectomy is more effective than traditional transabdominal hysterectomy. It has the advantages of quick recovery, less trauma and less pain in patients. It is worthy of clinical application.