论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨分析宫腔镜和腹腔镜联合应用于不孕症的临床治疗效果和单纯宫腔镜治疗效果的差异性。方法:根据2012年2月至2013年2月我院接收的80例输卵管阻塞性不孕症患者来进行研究分析,将这些患者分组为对照组和观察组,均有40例,对照组使用宫腔镜治疗,观察组使用宫腔镜和腹腔镜联合治疗,对两组的临床治疗效果进行对比分析。结果:观察组和对照组患者的手术时间、手术出血量、肛门排气时间、住院时间等对比不存在统计学差异性(P>0.05)。观察组患者的术后通畅率和宫内妊娠率比对照组高,异位妊娠率比对照组低,两组结果存在统计学差异性(P<0.05)。结论:输卵管阻塞性不孕症选择腹腔镜和宫腔镜联合治疗的方式要优于单纯宫腔镜治疗,患者输卵管再通率比较高,微创疼痛小,可以进行推广使用。
Objective: To explore the difference between the clinical effect of hysteroscopy and laparoscopy combined with hysteroscopy in the treatment of infertility. Methods: From February 2012 to February 2013 in our hospital received 80 cases of tubal obstruction infertility patients to carry out research and analysis of these patients were grouped into control group and observation group, 40 cases in the control group using the Palace Endoscopic treatment, observation group using hysteroscopy and laparoscopy combined treatment, the clinical efficacy of the two groups were compared. Results: There was no significant difference between the observation group and the control group in the operation time, blood loss, anal exhaust time and hospitalization time (P> 0.05). The postoperative patency rate and intrauterine pregnancy rate in the observation group were higher than those in the control group, and the rate of ectopic pregnancy was lower than that in the control group. There was significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05). Conclusion: The choice of laparoscopic and hysteroscopic combined treatment of tubal obstruction infertility is better than that of hysteroscopy alone. The tubal recanalization rate is relatively high and minimally invasive pain is small, so it can be used widely.