论文部分内容阅读
目的:对比分析非脱垂子宫经阴道和经腹子宫全切术的治疗效果。方法:从我院收治的非脱垂子宫患者中选取68例进行研究分析,根据手术方法分为观察组(经阴子宫全切术治疗,34例)和对照组(经腹子宫全切术治疗,34例),对不同组别患者临床治疗效果进行对比分析。结果:两组患者术中出血量相比无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组患者手术时间、术后肛门排气时间和住院时间分别为(84.4±21.0)min、(23.1±3.2)h、(5.3±1.1)d同对照组患者的(99.6±21.7)min、(36.4±6.1)h、(7.2±1.4)d相比,差异有显著统计学意义(P<0.05);且观察组患者术后腹胀率、术后疼痛0—Ⅰ级率、术后镇痛率均同对照组患者之间具有显著统计学意义。P<0.05;但两组患者术后基本均没有出现并发症,其发生率相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:在对非脱垂子宫患者治疗时经阴子宫全切术临床效果较为显著,且具有损伤小和恢复快等优点,值得在临床实践上推广应用。
Objective: To compare the therapeutic effect of vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy in non-prolapsed uterus. Methods: Seventy-eight cases of non-prolapsed uterus admitted to our hospital were selected and analyzed. According to the surgical methods, they were divided into observation group (total hysterectomy, 34 cases) and control group (abdominal hysterectomy , 34 cases), the clinical effects of different groups were compared. Results: The operative blood loss, anal exhaust time and hospitalization time in the observation group were (84.4 ± 21.0) min and (23.1 ± 3.2) days respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05) h and (5.3 ± 1.1) d were significantly higher than those in the control group (99.6 ± 21.7) min, (36.4 ± 6.1) h and (7.2 ± 1.4) d, respectively The rate of postoperative abdominal distension, grade 0-Ⅰ postoperative pain and postoperative analgesia were significantly different from those in the control group. P <0.05; however, no complication occurred in both groups after operation, and the incidence was no significant difference (P> 0.05). Conclusion: In the treatment of patients with non-prolapsed uterus by hysterectomy, the clinical effect is more significant, and has the advantages of small damage and rapid recovery, it is worth promoting in clinical practice.