中外医疗
中外醫療
중외의료
CHINA FOREIGN MEDICAL TREATMENT
2015年
12期
52-53
,共2页
宫颈环形电切术%冷刀锥切术%宫颈上皮内瘤变
宮頸環形電切術%冷刀錐切術%宮頸上皮內瘤變
궁경배형전절술%냉도추절술%궁경상피내류변
Loop electrosurgical excision procedure%Cold-knife conization%Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
目的：探讨比较宫颈环形电切术(LEEP)与冷刀锥切术(CKC)治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)的疗效。方法回顾性分析2011年1月-2013年12月间该院收治的67例CIN患者的临床资料，按手术方式分为LEEP组(n=35)和CKC组(n=32)。比较两组患者手术情况、临床疗效及并发症发生情况。结果与CKC组相比，LEEP组手术时间和创面愈合时间显著缩短，术中出血量显著减少(P均<0.05)。随访1年，LEEP组的治愈率、残留率和复发率分别为91.4%、5.7%、2.8%，CKC组的分别为93.8%、3.1%、3.1%(P均>0.05)。 LEEP组并发症发生率为5.7%，明显低于CKC组25.0%的并发症发生率(P<0.05)。结论LEEP治疗CIN疗效可靠，临床治愈率高，与CKC相比，手术时间、创面愈合时间短，术中出血量少，并发症发生率低，临床上值得进一步推广。
目的：探討比較宮頸環形電切術(LEEP)與冷刀錐切術(CKC)治療宮頸上皮內瘤變(CIN)的療效。方法迴顧性分析2011年1月-2013年12月間該院收治的67例CIN患者的臨床資料，按手術方式分為LEEP組(n=35)和CKC組(n=32)。比較兩組患者手術情況、臨床療效及併髮癥髮生情況。結果與CKC組相比，LEEP組手術時間和創麵愈閤時間顯著縮短，術中齣血量顯著減少(P均<0.05)。隨訪1年，LEEP組的治愈率、殘留率和複髮率分彆為91.4%、5.7%、2.8%，CKC組的分彆為93.8%、3.1%、3.1%(P均>0.05)。 LEEP組併髮癥髮生率為5.7%，明顯低于CKC組25.0%的併髮癥髮生率(P<0.05)。結論LEEP治療CIN療效可靠，臨床治愈率高，與CKC相比，手術時間、創麵愈閤時間短，術中齣血量少，併髮癥髮生率低，臨床上值得進一步推廣。
목적：탐토비교궁경배형전절술(LEEP)여냉도추절술(CKC)치료궁경상피내류변(CIN)적료효。방법회고성분석2011년1월-2013년12월간해원수치적67례CIN환자적림상자료，안수술방식분위LEEP조(n=35)화CKC조(n=32)。비교량조환자수술정황、림상료효급병발증발생정황。결과여CKC조상비，LEEP조수술시간화창면유합시간현저축단，술중출혈량현저감소(P균<0.05)。수방1년，LEEP조적치유솔、잔류솔화복발솔분별위91.4%、5.7%、2.8%，CKC조적분별위93.8%、3.1%、3.1%(P균>0.05)。 LEEP조병발증발생솔위5.7%，명현저우CKC조25.0%적병발증발생솔(P<0.05)。결론LEEP치료CIN료효가고，림상치유솔고，여CKC상비，수술시간、창면유합시간단，술중출혈량소，병발증발생솔저，림상상치득진일보추엄。
Objective To compare the curative efficacy of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and cold-knife coniza-tion (CKC) in treating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Methods 67 cases of CIN from January 2011 to December 2013 were selected to retrospectively analyze their clinical materials. According to operative method, these cases were divided into the LEEP group (n=35) and the CKC group (n=32). Then, operation situation,the curative efficacy and incidence of complications were observed and compared. Results In comparison with the CKC group, the LEEP group had a statistically shorter operation time, wound healing time and less bleeding volume during the operation (P<0.05). After the one-year follow-up, the cure rate, residual rate and recurrence rate in the LEEP group was 91.4%, 5.7%, 2.8% respectively, which was respectively statistically same with that of 93.8%, 3.1%, 3.1%in the CKC group (P>0.05). The incidence in the LEEP group was 5.7%, which was statistically lower than that of 25.0%in the CKC group (P<0.05). Conclusion LEEP for patients with CIN is effective, which has a high cure rate. In comparison with the CKC, it has shorter operation time, wound healing time, less bleeding volume during the operation and lower incidence of complications.
