中国医药指南
中國醫藥指南
중국의약지남
CHINA MEDICINE GUIDE
2013年
7期
16-18
,共3页
殷春%张喜清%方伊刚%郭振平
慇春%張喜清%方伊剛%郭振平
은춘%장희청%방이강%곽진평
大隐静脉曲张%传统金属剥脱器%高位结扎联合血管腔内激光%微创剥脱器
大隱靜脈麯張%傳統金屬剝脫器%高位結扎聯閤血管腔內激光%微創剝脫器
대은정맥곡장%전통금속박탈기%고위결찰연합혈관강내격광%미창박탈기
Great saphenous vein varicosity%Traditional Stripper%Endogenous laser combined with high ligation%Minimally invasive stripper
目的通过对比分析采用3种不同术式治疗大隐静脉曲张的疗效.方法回顾分析我科2007年1月至2012年1月以来收治的420例大隐静脉曲张(GSVV)病例,分别采用传统金属剥脱器(TS),高位结扎联合血管腔内激光(ELCHL),微创剥脱器(MIS)治疗,其中传统金属剥脱器组(传统组)158例,高位结扎联合血管腔内激光(激光组)102例,微创剥脱器(微创组)160例,比较3组在手术时间,术中出血量,住院时间,术后并发症发生率,复发率方面的差异.结果微创组及激光组与传统组相比,手术时间、术中出血量及住院天数显著降低(P<0.01).微创组及激光组与传统组相比,术后并发症发生率及复发率显著降低(P<0.01).微创组较激光组在手术时间、术中出血量及住院天数方面无显著差异(P>0.01),术后并发症发生率及复发率之间无显著差异(P>0.01).结论微创组及激光组较传统组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症、复发率方面存在显著优势,微创组与激光组比临床疗效无明显差异.
目的通過對比分析採用3種不同術式治療大隱靜脈麯張的療效.方法迴顧分析我科2007年1月至2012年1月以來收治的420例大隱靜脈麯張(GSVV)病例,分彆採用傳統金屬剝脫器(TS),高位結扎聯閤血管腔內激光(ELCHL),微創剝脫器(MIS)治療,其中傳統金屬剝脫器組(傳統組)158例,高位結扎聯閤血管腔內激光(激光組)102例,微創剝脫器(微創組)160例,比較3組在手術時間,術中齣血量,住院時間,術後併髮癥髮生率,複髮率方麵的差異.結果微創組及激光組與傳統組相比,手術時間、術中齣血量及住院天數顯著降低(P<0.01).微創組及激光組與傳統組相比,術後併髮癥髮生率及複髮率顯著降低(P<0.01).微創組較激光組在手術時間、術中齣血量及住院天數方麵無顯著差異(P>0.01),術後併髮癥髮生率及複髮率之間無顯著差異(P>0.01).結論微創組及激光組較傳統組在手術時間、術中齣血量、術後併髮癥、複髮率方麵存在顯著優勢,微創組與激光組比臨床療效無明顯差異.
목적통과대비분석채용3충불동술식치료대은정맥곡장적료효.방법회고분석아과2007년1월지2012년1월이래수치적420례대은정맥곡장(GSVV)병례,분별채용전통금속박탈기(TS),고위결찰연합혈관강내격광(ELCHL),미창박탈기(MIS)치료,기중전통금속박탈기조(전통조)158례,고위결찰연합혈관강내격광(격광조)102례,미창박탈기(미창조)160례,비교3조재수술시간,술중출혈량,주원시간,술후병발증발생솔,복발솔방면적차이.결과미창조급격광조여전통조상비,수술시간、술중출혈량급주원천수현저강저(P<0.01).미창조급격광조여전통조상비,술후병발증발생솔급복발솔현저강저(P<0.01).미창조교격광조재수술시간、술중출혈량급주원천수방면무현저차이(P>0.01),술후병발증발생솔급복발솔지간무현저차이(P>0.01).결론미창조급격광조교전통조재수술시간、술중출혈량、술후병발증、복발솔방면존재현저우세,미창조여격광조비림상료효무명현차이.
@@@@Objective To comparatively analysis the treatment effects of three surgical approaches for great saphenous vein varicosity. Methods To retrospective analysis 420 cases GSVV from January 2007 to January 2012. All samlples were respectively treated by traditional stripper (TS, 158 cases), endogenous laser combined with high ligation (ELCHL, 102 cases) or minimally invasive stripper (MIS, 160 cases);it was compared each group that mean length of hospital stay, time of surgery, postoperative complications, healing time and recurrence rate. Results Mean length of hospital stay, time of surgery and healing time in MIS and ELCHL groups was notable shorter than that in TS group (P<0.01). Recurrence rate and postoperative complications in MIS and ELCHL groups was notable shorter than that in TS group (P<0.01). Hospital stay, time of surgery, postoperative complications, healing time and recurrence rate were similar in MIS and ELCHL group (P>0.01). Conclusion The therapeutic effect of surgery for GSVV with MIS was as good as surgery with ELCHL, and both has obviously advantage than TS.