论文部分内容阅读
目的:观察和比较宫腔镜下电切术和宫腔镜下刮宫术诊断和治疗异常子宫出血的临床效果。方法:选择我院2015年1月-2016年1月收治的子宫异常出血患者90例,随机分组,各组为45例,对照组采用宫腔镜下刮宫术进行治疗,观察组采用宫腔镜下电切术进行治疗。观察和比较两组异常子宫出血病因检出率、临床治疗效果。结果:(1)两组异常子宫出血病因检出率对比不存在显著差异,P>0.05。(2)与对照组痊愈率(62.22%)对比,观察组痊愈率(88.89%)明显更高,P<0.05。结论:宫腔镜下电切术与宫腔镜下刮宫术诊断异常子宫出血原因的效果无显著差异,但是与宫腔镜下刮宫术对比,宫腔镜下电切术治疗异常子宫出血具有更确切的疗效,值得临床广泛应用以及推广。
Objective: To observe and compare the clinical effect of hysteroscopic resection and hysteroscopic curettage in the diagnosis and treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Methods: 90 cases of abnormal uterine bleeding in our hospital from January 2015 to January 2016 were randomly divided into groups of 45 cases. The control group was treated by hysteroscopic curettage. The observation group was treated by hysteroscopy Under the power cut for treatment. The incidence of abnormal ectopic uterine bleeding and the clinical effect were observed and compared between two groups. Results: (1) There was no significant difference in the detection rate of etiology between the two groups (P> 0.05). (2) Compared with the cure rate of the control group (62.22%), the recovery rate of the observation group (88.89%) was significantly higher (P <0.05). Conclusions: The results of hysteroscopic resection and hysteroscopic curettage in diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding have no significant difference, but compared with hysteroscopic curettage, hysteroscopic resection of abnormal uterine bleeding has more The exact effect, it is widely used in clinical and promotion.