论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨不同宫颈锥切方法治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级的临床疗效。方法选取我院收治的90例宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级患者作为研究对象,将其随机分为对照组和实验组,对对照组患者采取宫颈环形电切除术,对实验组患者采取宫颈冷刀锥切术。结果实验组患者的手术持续时间、术中出血量、高危HPV感染率与对照组相比差异十分明显(P<0.05);两组患者在术后并发症方面的对比结果无统计学意义(P>0.05),所有患者病情在治疗后均明显缓解。结论两种宫颈锥切方法治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级均易被患者接受,但宫颈冷刀锥切术在手术持续时间和HPV感染率等方面明显优于宫颈环形电切除术,在治疗时应根据实际情况进行选择。
Objective To investigate the clinical effect of different cervical conization method in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade Ⅲ. Methods 90 patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade Ⅲ admitted to our hospital were selected as the research object, which were randomly divided into control group and experimental group. Cervical ring resection was performed on patients in the control group. Cervical cold knife Conization. Results The duration of operation, the amount of intraoperative blood loss and the risk of high-risk HPV infection in the experimental group were significantly different from those in the control group (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05), all patients were significantly relieved after treatment. Conclusions Both cervical conization and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade Ⅲ are easy to be accepted by patients. However, cervical cold knife conization is superior to cervical loop resection in duration of operation and HPV infection rate. Should be based on the actual situation to choose from.