两种不同手术方式治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠的疗效观察
|
摘要
目的探讨经腹疤痕妊娠物清除术与经阴道疤痕妊娠物清除术两种不同手术方式治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠(CSP)的疗效,为临床提供参考。方法 60例CSP患者,随机分为对照组和观察组,各30例。对照组行经腹疤痕妊娠物清除术治疗,观察组行经阴道疤痕妊娠物清除术治疗。观察比较两组患者的一次手术治愈情况、相关指标、视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分。结果两组患者一次手术治愈率均为100.00%(30/30),组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗后,观察组患者的手术时间、住院时间短于对照组,出血量少于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(t=7.676、8.410、27.897,P<0.05);两组患者的月经恢复时间、β-人绒毛膜促性腺激素(β-HCG)转阴时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后24、48、72 h,观察组患者的VAS评分均低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与经腹疤痕妊娠物清除术比较,经阴道疤痕妊娠物清除术治疗CSP的疗效较佳,可缩短手术时间、住院时间,减少出血量,减少并发症发生,缓解疼痛,值得推广。
Objective To investigate the efficacy of two different surgical methods of transabdominal scar pregnancy removal and transvaginal scar pregnancy removal on the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy(CSP), so as to provide reference for clinical practice. Methods A total of 60 CSP patients were randomly divided into control group and observation group, with 30 cases in each group. The control group received transabdominal scar pregnancy removal, and the observation group received transvaginal scar pregnancy removal. Observation and comparison were made on cure situation with one time operation, related index and visual analogue scale(VAS) score between the two groups. Results Both groups had cure rate with one time operation as 100.00%(30/30), and the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05). After treatment, the observation group had shorter operation time and hospitalization time than the control group, and less bleeding volume than the control group. Their difference was statistically significant(t=7.676, 8.410, 27.897, P<0.05). Both groups had no statistically significant difference in menstruation recovery time and β-human chorionic gonadotropin(β-HCG) negative-conversion time(P>0.05). In postoperative 24, 48 and 72 h, the observation group had lower VAS score than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with transabdominal scar pregnancy removal, transvaginal scar pregnancy removal shows better efficacy on the treatment of CSP, and it can shorten operation time, hospitalization time, reduce bleeding volume and occurrence of complications and relieve pain. It is worthy of promotion.
Objective To investigate the efficacy of two different surgical methods of transabdominal scar pregnancy removal and transvaginal scar pregnancy removal on the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy(CSP), so as to provide reference for clinical practice. Methods A total of 60 CSP patients were randomly divided into control group and observation group, with 30 cases in each group. The control group received transabdominal scar pregnancy removal, and the observation group received transvaginal scar pregnancy removal. Observation and comparison were made on cure situation with one time operation, related index and visual analogue scale(VAS) score between the two groups. Results Both groups had cure rate with one time operation as 100.00%(30/30), and the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05). After treatment, the observation group had shorter operation time and hospitalization time than the control group, and less bleeding volume than the control group. Their difference was statistically significant(t=7.676, 8.410, 27.897, P<0.05). Both groups had no statistically significant difference in menstruation recovery time and β-human chorionic gonadotropin(β-HCG) negative-conversion time(P>0.05). In postoperative 24, 48 and 72 h, the observation group had lower VAS score than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with transabdominal scar pregnancy removal, transvaginal scar pregnancy removal shows better efficacy on the treatment of CSP, and it can shorten operation time, hospitalization time, reduce bleeding volume and occurrence of complications and relieve pain. It is worthy of promotion.
引文
[1]Abadilla AME,Jaspan D,Dandolu V.Scar pregnancy:a rare complication of caesarean section.Gynecological Surgery,2008,5(3):253-255.
[2]黄伟容,赵仁峰,吴玉英,等.阴式手术在治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠中的临床价值.现代妇产科进展,2017,26(7):534-535.
[3]镇春,王中海,单丽丽,等.经阴道子宫疤痕切开取胚并子宫缺陷修补术在治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠中的研究.现代诊断与治疗,2014,25(18):4214-4215.
[4]龚翠梅,习风英,姚娟,等.阴式子宫疤痕妊娠病灶清除修补术治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠的临床研究.中国现代医学杂志,2014,24(9):72-74.
[5]李锦波,陈淑琴,孔凌智,等.经阴道手术治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠的临床分析.中山大学学报(医学科学版),2016,37(6):886-892.
[6]卢彩红.用经阴道子宫切口疤痕妊娠物清除术治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠的效果分析.当代医药论丛,2016,14(22):60-61.
[7]邢旭.阴式子宫疤痕妊娠病灶清除术在剖宫产疤痕妊娠中的应用效果观察.现代诊断与治疗,2017,28(9):1715-1716.
[8]张月桃,李琼珍,郑晓霞,等.两种不同手术方式治疗剖宫产术后疤痕妊娠患者的效果比较.内科,2017,12(1):86-87.
[9]尚雪,孙广范,关燕鸣.不同方式治疗剖宫产术后子宫疤痕妊娠的临床效果分析.临床医学工程,2017,24(8):1091-1092.
[10]叶育芳,林霞,栾峰,等.阴式子宫疤痕妊娠病灶清除术治疗剖宫产术后疤痕妊娠的效果分析研究.中国性科学,2017,26(2):96-99.
[11]李杨,刘维金,曹云飞,等.剖宫产瘢痕妊娠治疗护理进展.航空航天医学杂志,2012,23(4):495-497.
[12]Jiao LZ,Zhao J,Wan XR,et al.Diagonosis and treatment ofcesarean scar pregnancy.Chin Med Sci J,2008,23(21):220-227.
[13]李莉.6例剖宫产瘢痕妊娠手术患者的护理.实用医药杂志,2014,31(3):259.
[14]林经萍,盛晓滨.32例剖宫产子宫切口疤痕妊娠的临床分析.齐齐哈尔医学院学报,2017,38(5):529-530.
[15]连成瑛,陈秀娟,林元,等.224例剖宫产术后子宫疤痕妊娠不同治疗方法的临床疗效分析.现代妇产科进展,2016,25(8):603-607.
[2]黄伟容,赵仁峰,吴玉英,等.阴式手术在治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠中的临床价值.现代妇产科进展,2017,26(7):534-535.
[3]镇春,王中海,单丽丽,等.经阴道子宫疤痕切开取胚并子宫缺陷修补术在治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠中的研究.现代诊断与治疗,2014,25(18):4214-4215.
[4]龚翠梅,习风英,姚娟,等.阴式子宫疤痕妊娠病灶清除修补术治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠的临床研究.中国现代医学杂志,2014,24(9):72-74.
[5]李锦波,陈淑琴,孔凌智,等.经阴道手术治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠的临床分析.中山大学学报(医学科学版),2016,37(6):886-892.
[6]卢彩红.用经阴道子宫切口疤痕妊娠物清除术治疗剖宫产疤痕妊娠的效果分析.当代医药论丛,2016,14(22):60-61.
[7]邢旭.阴式子宫疤痕妊娠病灶清除术在剖宫产疤痕妊娠中的应用效果观察.现代诊断与治疗,2017,28(9):1715-1716.
[8]张月桃,李琼珍,郑晓霞,等.两种不同手术方式治疗剖宫产术后疤痕妊娠患者的效果比较.内科,2017,12(1):86-87.
[9]尚雪,孙广范,关燕鸣.不同方式治疗剖宫产术后子宫疤痕妊娠的临床效果分析.临床医学工程,2017,24(8):1091-1092.
[10]叶育芳,林霞,栾峰,等.阴式子宫疤痕妊娠病灶清除术治疗剖宫产术后疤痕妊娠的效果分析研究.中国性科学,2017,26(2):96-99.
[11]李杨,刘维金,曹云飞,等.剖宫产瘢痕妊娠治疗护理进展.航空航天医学杂志,2012,23(4):495-497.
[12]Jiao LZ,Zhao J,Wan XR,et al.Diagonosis and treatment ofcesarean scar pregnancy.Chin Med Sci J,2008,23(21):220-227.
[13]李莉.6例剖宫产瘢痕妊娠手术患者的护理.实用医药杂志,2014,31(3):259.
[14]林经萍,盛晓滨.32例剖宫产子宫切口疤痕妊娠的临床分析.齐齐哈尔医学院学报,2017,38(5):529-530.
[15]连成瑛,陈秀娟,林元,等.224例剖宫产术后子宫疤痕妊娠不同治疗方法的临床疗效分析.现代妇产科进展,2016,25(8):603-607.