论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨经腹全子宫切除术与腹腔镜辅助下阴式子宫切除术的临床效果。方法选取2012年4月至2015年3月广东省珠海市妇幼保健院收治的114例需行子宫全切的患者作为研究对象,按治疗方法随机将其分为甲、乙两组,各57例。甲组患者手术方式为经腹全子宫切除术,乙组患者采用腹腔镜辅助下阴式子宫切除术,比较两组患者临床各项指标。结果乙组患者手术时间和术中出血量均优于甲组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);乙组患者术后首次下床时间、肛门排气时间、自主排尿时间、抗生素使用时间以及住院时间均明显短于甲组,治疗费用明显高于甲组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);乙组患者镇痛率(0.0%)明显低于甲组(19.3%),并发症发生率(5.3%)明显低于甲组(19.3%),差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论与经腹全子宫切除术相比,腹腔镜辅助下阴式子宫切除术具有手术时间短、出血量少、患者治疗后恢复快且术后发症少等优点。
Objective To investigate the clinical effect of transabdominal hysterectomy and laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Methods From April 2012 to March 2015, Zhuhai MCH Hospital of Guangdong Province, 114 cases of hysterectomy patients were selected as the research object, according to treatment were randomly divided into A, B two groups, each 57 cases . Group A patients with abdominal hysterectomy surgery, patients with laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy, the clinical indicators of both groups were compared. Results The operation time and intraoperative blood loss in group B were better than that in group A (all P <0.05). In group B, the time to first bed, anal exhaust time, spontaneous micturition time, antibiotics The use time and hospitalization time were significantly shorter than Group A, the treatment costs were significantly higher than Group A, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05); Group B analgesic rate (0.0%) was significantly lower than Group A (19.3 %). The incidence of complication (5.3%) was significantly lower than that of group A (19.3%) (all P <0.05). Conclusion Compared with transabdominal hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy has the advantages of short operative time, less bleeding, rapid recovery after treatment, and fewer postoperative complications.