摘要
目的:探讨宫颈环形电切术在治疗宫颈CINⅢ的临床价值。方法:对在阴道镜辅助下,多点活检病理证实为宫颈CINⅢ级的患者69例进行回顾性研究,其中38例行宫颈环形电切术(LEEP)治疗,另31例行冷刀锥切术,分别对其手术时间、术中出血情况、病灶残留情况、CIN复发情况、术后并发症进行比较。结果:LEEP组术后发现侵润癌2例,冷刀锥切组发现侵润癌1例,分别行手术治疗,其余各病例中,二者在手术时间、术中出血、术后出血中,LEEP组明显优于冷刀组,LEEP组术后病理边缘病灶残留(CINⅠ级)1例占2.7%。术后半年内治愈率LEEP组97.3%,冷刀组100%,两者无明显差异。LEEP组半年后再行LEEP活检术发现CINⅠ～Ⅱ级3例占8.1%,冷刀组半年后多点活检CINⅠ1例占3.3%。由于二者取材方法不同无法进行比较,冷刀组术后宫颈部分或全部粘连3例10%,LEEP组为1例占5.4%,二者术后1年均未见复发病例。结论:LEEP手术对于治疗宫颈CINⅢ级是行之有效的方法,但需要有一定的操作技术及完善的术后随访。
Objective： To investigate the clinic value of LEEP in treatment of cervical CIN Ⅲ. Methods： Under the colposcopy, 69 patients diagnosed as CINⅢ through pathology were retrospectively. Among them, 38 patients treated with LEEP, 31 ones with cool knife treatment. Bleeding, focus remains, CIN m relapses and the complications after opertation were compared between two groups. Results： Two cases of invasive carcinoma of cervix uteri in LEEP group and one case in cool knife group received operation. The LEEP group was superior to the cool knife group in operation time, bleeding in operation and after operation. There was one ease focus remain in LEEP group （2. 7% ）. The cure rate was 97. 3% in LEEp group and 100% in cool knife group in half past a year, had difference between two groups. 3 CINⅢ cases （8. 1% ） were found in LEEP group and one case （3. 3% ） in cool knife group, because of different method of operation, comparision was not done in two groups. 3 cases of cervical adhesion was in cool knife group and one case in LEEP group. There were no relapse in two groups in a year after operation. Conclusion： LEEP is an effective method in treating cervical CIN Ⅲ, but need well - trained operation and periodical visitation.
出处
《中国妇幼保健》
CAS
北大核心
2008年第36期5225-5226,共2页
Maternal and Child Health Care of China
关键词
环形电切术
冷刀锥切术
宫颈CIN
Loop electrosurgical excision procedure
Cryoprobe excision procedure
Cervix
