摘要
目的方便研究分析腹腔镜全子宫切除术(TLH)和腹腔镜辅助阴式全子宫切除术(LAVH)两种手术方式的临床效果。方法选取南京市浦口区浦厂医院妇科2016年1—12月收治的146例具有全子宫切除术确切手术指征的患者,腹腔镜全子宫切除术组(T组)73例和腹腔镜辅助阴式全子宫切除术组(L组)73例患者,记录并比较两组患者的手术进行时间、术中出血总量、术后肛门排气时间、术后3个月伤口愈合情况。结果两组患者相比,T组患者手术进行时间(80.2±9.5)min以及术中出血总量(50.2±11.1)m L均小于L组[手术进行时间和术中出血量分别为(95.6±15.6)min和(81.2±16.0)m L],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者术后肛门排气时间及伤口愈合情况相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论在两种手术方式都是微创手术的基础上,TLH的手术方式具有术中出血量少,术中操作视野清晰,缩短手术操作时间的优点。在临床上,应根据患者的身体具体情况,为手术患者提供最佳的手术方案,从而达到最佳的治疗效果。
Objective To research and analyze the clinical effect of TLH and LAVH. Methods 146 cases of patients with definite operation signs of panhysterectomy in pukou district puchang hospital from January to December 2016 were convenient selected and divided into two groups with 73 cases in each, including the TLH group(T group) and LAVH group(L group),and the operation time, total amount of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative anal exhaust time and wound healing situation in 3 months after surgery were compared between the two groups. Results The operation time and intraoeprative bleeding amount in the T group were smaller than those in the L group, [(80.2 ±9.5)min,(50.2 ±11.1)m L vs(95.6 ±15.6)min,(81.2 ±16.0)m L], and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05), and there were no obvious differences in the postoperative anal exhaust time and wound healing situation between the two groups without statistical significance(P>0.05). Conclusion The TLH operation method has the advantages of less intraopeative bleeding amount, clear operative vision, short operation time on the basis of the minimally invasive surgery, and we should provide the best operation plan according to the specific physical conditions thus obtaining a best treatment effect.
出处
《中外医疗》
2017年第31期13-15,共3页
China & Foreign Medical Treatment
