论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨LAVH与经阴式子宫切除两种术式治疗非脱垂子宫良性病变的临床意义。方法:选择大丰市人民医院应用LAVH治疗的62例非脱垂子宫良性病变患者及同期应用经阴式子宫切除的患者50例,对两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后镇痛药、术后排气时间、阴道残端息肉和住院时间等方面进行比较。结果:两组患者在手术时间和术中出血量方面比较,差异无统计学意义(P<0.05);在术后需镇痛药、术后排气时间、阴道残端息肉和住院时间方面比较,实验组明显优于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:LAVH与经阴式子宫切除两种手术方式均为创伤小,恢复快的微创手术,LAVH扩大了手术适应证,在相近的手术时间和术中出血量情况下,在术后需镇痛药、术后排气时间、阴道残端息肉和住院时间方面具有明显的优势,值得在临床中广泛使用并推广。
Objective: To investigate the clinical significance of LAVH and vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of non-prolapsed uterine benign lesions. Methods: Sixty-two patients with non-prolapsed uterine benign lesions treated with LAVH and 50 patients with vaginal hysterectomy during the same period were selected in Dafeng City People’s Hospital. The operation time, blood loss, Painkillers, postoperative exhaust time, vaginal stump polyps and hospital stay and other aspects of comparison. Results: There was no significant difference in operative time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P <0.05). Comparisons were made between postoperative analgesics, postoperative exhaust time, vaginal stump polyp and hospital stay , The experimental group was significantly better than the control group (P <0.05). Conclusion: Both LAVH and vaginal hysterectomy are minimally invasive and rapid minimally invasive surgery. LAVH expands the indications for surgery. In the case of similar operation time and intraoperative blood loss, Painkillers, postoperative exhaust time, vaginal stump polyps and length of stay have obvious advantages, it is worth widely used in clinical and promotion.