摘要
目的:比较单纯压迫、电凝及缝合方法对宫颈冷刀锥切创面止血的效果。方法:5年来136例接受宫颈冷刀锥切的患者,按止血方法分为单纯压迫组(25例),电凝组(66例),缝合组(45例)。比较术中出血量、手术时间及并发症等情况。结果:平均术中出血量单纯压迫组56.60±42.20ml和电凝组63.33±46.15ml,较缝合组98.67±72.22ml明显减少(P<0.05)。平均手术时间单纯压迫组23.40±11.43分钟显著短于电凝组33.53±17.89分钟和缝合组37.89±18.04分钟(P<0.05)。手术相关并发症发生率单纯压迫组为24.00%,电凝组24.24%,缝合组28.89%(P>0.05)。结论:非缝合法对冷刀锥切术创面止血效果好、手术时间短,较缝合法有优势。
Objective：To compare the efficacy of pressure,electrocautery and suture method for hemostasis of the cervical cone bed.Methods：136 patients who underwent cold knife conization were categorized into three groups： the pressure group（n=25）,the cautery group（n=66）,and the suture group（n=45）. Blood loss during operation,operative time,and incidence of complications were compared.Results：The suture group had significantly higher estimated blood loss than the other two groups （98.67 ml versus 56.60 ml in pressure group and 63.33 ml in cautery group;P〈0.05）.The pressure group had significantly shorter operative time than the other two groups （23.40 minutes versus 33.53 in cautery group and 37.89 minutes in suture group;P〈0.05）. The operation-related complication rate was 24% in the pressure group,24.2% in cautery group and 28.9% in suture group （P〉0.05）.Conclusions：Non-suture of the cone bed is superior to suture with significantly less blood loss and shorter operative time.
出处
《实用妇产科杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2008年第9期537-539,共3页
Journal of Practical Obstetrics and Gynecology
关键词
宫颈上皮内瘤变
宫颈冷刀锥切
止血方法
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
Cold knife conization
Hemostasis method
