中国组织工程研究
中國組織工程研究
중국조직공정연구
Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research
2014年
43期
7039-7046
,共8页
生物材料%材料相容性%盆底功能障碍%Prolift生物网片%阴道前后壁修补%Meta分析%手术方式%疗效评价%盆底重建
生物材料%材料相容性%盆底功能障礙%Prolift生物網片%陰道前後壁脩補%Meta分析%手術方式%療效評價%盆底重建
생물재료%재료상용성%분저공능장애%Prolift생물망편%음도전후벽수보%Meta분석%수술방식%료효평개%분저중건
背景：近年来，Prolift 生物网片材料在盆底重建手术中广泛应用，学者们一直在探索 Prolift 生物网片材料与传统手术治疗盆底功能障碍性疾病的利弊。<br> 目的：系统评价Prolift生物网片材料盆底重建术与传统手术治疗盆底功能障碍性疾病的临床疗效。<br> 方法：通过检索1996至2014年万方数据库、维普、PubMed、Medline等数据库，纳入Prolift生物网片材料盆底重建手术与传统手术治疗盆底功能障碍的随机对照研究，从符合要求的文献中收集数据资料，应用RevMan5.2软件对两种治疗方法进行Meta分析。<br> 结果与结论：纳入9个随机对照研究，共计780例患者，其中Prolift生物网片重建组398例，传统手术组382例。Prolift生物网片重建组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、术后排气时间、术后最高体温、及术后18个月治愈率方面显著优于传统手术组(P <0.05)，两组在术后残余尿量、术后6个月、12个月治愈率、术后1年性生活质量、术后复发率方面差异无显著性意义(P>0.05)。表明Prolift生物网片材料盆底重建治疗盆底功能障碍性疾病的近期疗效某些方面优于传统手术，对 Prolift 生物网片材料盆底重建远期疗效的最终判断有待于更好的循证证据。
揹景：近年來，Prolift 生物網片材料在盆底重建手術中廣汎應用，學者們一直在探索 Prolift 生物網片材料與傳統手術治療盆底功能障礙性疾病的利弊。<br> 目的：繫統評價Prolift生物網片材料盆底重建術與傳統手術治療盆底功能障礙性疾病的臨床療效。<br> 方法：通過檢索1996至2014年萬方數據庫、維普、PubMed、Medline等數據庫，納入Prolift生物網片材料盆底重建手術與傳統手術治療盆底功能障礙的隨機對照研究，從符閤要求的文獻中收集數據資料，應用RevMan5.2軟件對兩種治療方法進行Meta分析。<br> 結果與結論：納入9箇隨機對照研究，共計780例患者，其中Prolift生物網片重建組398例，傳統手術組382例。Prolift生物網片重建組手術時間、術中齣血量、住院時間、術後排氣時間、術後最高體溫、及術後18箇月治愈率方麵顯著優于傳統手術組(P <0.05)，兩組在術後殘餘尿量、術後6箇月、12箇月治愈率、術後1年性生活質量、術後複髮率方麵差異無顯著性意義(P>0.05)。錶明Prolift生物網片材料盆底重建治療盆底功能障礙性疾病的近期療效某些方麵優于傳統手術，對 Prolift 生物網片材料盆底重建遠期療效的最終判斷有待于更好的循證證據。
배경：근년래，Prolift 생물망편재료재분저중건수술중엄범응용，학자문일직재탐색 Prolift 생물망편재료여전통수술치료분저공능장애성질병적리폐。<br> 목적：계통평개Prolift생물망편재료분저중건술여전통수술치료분저공능장애성질병적림상료효。<br> 방법：통과검색1996지2014년만방수거고、유보、PubMed、Medline등수거고，납입Prolift생물망편재료분저중건수술여전통수술치료분저공능장애적수궤대조연구，종부합요구적문헌중수집수거자료，응용RevMan5.2연건대량충치료방법진행Meta분석。<br> 결과여결론：납입9개수궤대조연구，공계780례환자，기중Prolift생물망편중건조398례，전통수술조382례。Prolift생물망편중건조수술시간、술중출혈량、주원시간、술후배기시간、술후최고체온、급술후18개월치유솔방면현저우우전통수술조(P <0.05)，량조재술후잔여뇨량、술후6개월、12개월치유솔、술후1년성생활질량、술후복발솔방면차이무현저성의의(P>0.05)。표명Prolift생물망편재료분저중건치료분저공능장애성질병적근기료효모사방면우우전통수술，대 Prolift 생물망편재료분저중건원기료효적최종판단유대우경호적순증증거。
BACKGROUND:In recent years, prolift mesh pelvic materials have been widely used in the pelvic floor reconstruction. Scholars have been exploring the advantages and disadvantages of the prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction and the traditional hysterectomy for pelvic floor reconstruction. <br> OBJECTIVE:To systemical y assess prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction versus traditional hysterectomy for pelvic floor reconstruction. <br> METHODS:Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, Medline databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) related to the clinical effectiveness of prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction versus traditional hysterectomy for pelvic floor reconstruction published from 1996 to 2014. Meta analysis of acquired data was performed through the use of RevMan5.2 software. <br> RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Nine RCTs involving 780 patients were included. Of the 780 patients, 398 received prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction and 382 underwent traditional hysterectomy. Compared with, prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction was superior to the traditional hysterectomy group in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospitalization duration, evacuation time, postoperative body temperature, and cure rate of 18 months (P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in the post-void residual volume, recurrence rate, the cure rate of 6 months and 12 months, quality of sexual life after 1 year postoperatively (P>0.05). These results reveal that the prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction exhibits better short-term effects on the pelvic floor dysfunction, but its long-term effects need to be further verified.
