目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助下阴式子宫切除术(LAVH)与单纯经阴道子宫切除术(TVH)两种不同方式的子宫切除术的临床应用价值。方法 回顾性分析本院2013年1月—2014年12月96例行全子宫切除术患者的临床资料,其中腹腔镜辅助下经阴道全子宫切除术40例(LAVH组),单纯经阴道全子宫切除术56例(TVH组)。结果 LAVH组患者较大子宫所占比例高于TVH组,LAVH组的平均手术时间[(158.0±60.1)min]、平均住院费用[(12 888.8±1 926.9)元]均显著高于TVH组[(105.30±43.7)min、(8 147.30±2 050.2)元],两组差异均有统计学意义;LAVH组患者的术后病率远低于TVH组[5.0% vs. 25.0%],差异有统计学意义;两组患者在年龄、盆腔手术史、手术原因、术中出血量及术后住院时间方面差异均无统计学意义。结论 LAVH适用于较大子宫的患者,术后病率低,其手术适应症广,安全性高;TVH手术时间短,住院费用低。LAVH与TVH两种术式各有利弊,术式选择应根据患者具体情况进行全面评估后决定。
关键词
腹腔镜 /
全子宫切除术 /
经阴道全子宫切除术
{{custom_keyword}} /
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
1 Guo Y,Tian X,Wang L.Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy vs vaginal hysterectomy:meta analysis.J Minim Invasive Gynecol,2013,20:15-21.
2 李宁,陈宁,王燕娇.腹腔镜辅助下阴式全子宫切除术与阴式全子宫切除的疗效对比.中国内镜杂志,2013,19:1083-1086.
3 Allam IS,Makled AK,Gomaa IA,et al.Total laparoscopic hysterectomy,vaginal hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy using electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing technique:a randomized controlled trial.Arch Gynecol Obstet,2015,291:1341-1345.
4 Moen MD,Richter HE.Vaginal hysterectomy:past,present,and future.Int Urogynecol J,2014,25:1161-1165.
5 Shiota M,Kotani Y,Umemoto M,et al.Total abdominal hysterectomy versus laparoscopically-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total vaginal hysterectomy.Asian J Endosc Surg,2011,4:161-165.
6 韩珺,李丽.开腹、阴式、腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫全切术临床分析.中国妇幼保健,2010,25:2309-2310.
7 Pokkinen SM,Kalliomki ML,Yli-Hankala A,et al.Less postoperative pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy than after vaginal hysterectomy.Arch Gynecol Obstet,2015,292:149-154.
8 Song T,Kim TJ,Kang H,et al.Factors associated with complications and conversion to laparotomy in women undergoing laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand,2012,91:620-624.
{{custom_fnGroup.title_cn}}
脚注
{{custom_fn.content}}
PDF(715 KB)
