缝合和电凝止血对冷刀锥切治疗 CIN 的临床疗效观察

摘要

目的：比较冷刀宫颈锥形切除术中创面缝合止血与直接电凝止血的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析2013年1月至2014年1月于中国医科大学附属盛京医院微创妇科住院行冷刀宫颈锥形切除术且术后随访资料完整的66例宫颈上皮内瘤变患者。随机分为2组，其中37例采用直接电凝止血（研究组），对照组29例采用缝合成形止血。比较两组手术时间、术中出血、住院时间、术后并发症发生率、HPV 清除率。结果：研究组手术时间、术中出血量、术后平均住院时间少于对照组（P <0.05），术后并发症发生率无明显差异，术后3个月两组 HPV 清除率（73.3%、54.2%）差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。结论：行冷刀宫颈锥形切除术使用两种不同止血方式，电凝止血的临床疗效优于缝合止血。%Objective:To compare clinical effects of sutured hemostasis with electric coagulation hemostasis during CKC. Methods:Retrospectively analyzing 66 patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and complete follow - up data. Randomly divided into 2 groups,of which 37 cases with electric coagulation hemostasis(research group),control group of 29 patients with sutured hemostasis. Compare two groups of operation time,intraoperative bleeding,length of hospital stay,postoperative complications and HPV clearance. Results:Team operation time,intraoperative blood loss, average hospitalization time was less than the control group(P < 0. 05),no difference between the incidence of postop-erative complications,postoperative 3 months,two groups of HPV clearance(73. 3% ,54. 2% ),the difference was statistically significant(P < 0. 05). Conclusion:Line of CKC using two different hemostatic ways,electric coagulation hemostasis clinical curative effect is superior to the sutured hemostasis.