Objective To comprehensively compare the risks of pelvic adhesions and intrauterine adhesions caused by artificial abortion and medical abortion through laparoscopic and hysteroscopic examination. Methods A total of 328 women with uterine infertility to receive treatment in our hospital were divided into an artificial abortion, a medical abortion, and a control group (primary infertility). According to the intraoperative exploration, the patients were divided further into mild, moderate and severe groups according to the status of pelvic adhesions and intrauterine adhesions, so as to compare the adhesions among the three groups. Results The incidence of pelvic adhesions in both artificial abortion and medical abortion groups was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in the incidence of pelvic adhesions between the artificial abortion group and the medical abortion group (P > 0.05), while the severity of pelvic adhesions in the medical abortion group was significantly greater than that in the artificial abortion group(P < 0.01); the incidence of intrauterine adhesions in the artificial abortion group was higher than that in the control group(P < 0.05); the incidence of intrauterine adhesions in the medical abortion was between that in the other two groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).Conclusion Compared with artificialabortion, medical abortion may cause more serious pelvic adhesions, so it is suggested that artificial abortion should be adopted for the early termination of pregnancy.%目的 通过宫腹腔镜联合探查手术综合比较药流与人流手术引起盆腔粘连及宫腔粘连的风险性.方法 将医院收治的不孕症患者328例根据病史分为药流组、人流组和对照组(原发不孕).根据术中探查情况,将患者盆腔粘连和宫腔粘连细化评分,分为轻、中、重度,分析对比3组术中所见粘连情况.收治的不孕症患者328例根据病史分为药流组、人流组和对照组(原发不孕).根据术中探查情况,将患者盆腔粘连和宫腔粘连细化评分,分为轻、中、重度,分析对比3组术中所见粘连情况.结果 人流组与药流组盆腔粘连发生率均明显高于对照组(P<0.05),而人流组与药流组之间发生率无统计学差异(P>0.05),但药流组盆腔粘连严重程度明显大于人流组(P<0.01);人流组宫腔粘连发生率高于对照组(P<0.05),药流组宫腔粘连发生率介于两者之间,但无统计学差异(P>0.05).结论 药流较人流手术更易引起严重的盆腔粘连,故对需早期终止妊娠者,建议行人流手术.
展开▼
