[1]夏伟兰,刘冰,王伶俐,等.3种手术方式治疗剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕憩室的 临床疗效对比及评价[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2020,(6):79-81,86.
　XIA Weilan,LIU Bing,WANG Linli,et al.Comparison and evaluation of the clinical effects of 3 surgical methods for uterine scar diverticulum after cesarean section[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2020,(6):79-81,86.
点击复制

3种手术方式治疗剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕憩室的 临床疗效对比及评价
分享到：

《中国计划生育和妇产科》[ISSN:1674-4020/CN:51-1708/R]

卷:
期数:
2020年6期
页码:
79-81,86
栏目:
论著与临床
出版日期:
2020-06-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison and evaluation of the clinical effects of 3 surgical methods for uterine scar diverticulum after cesarean section
作者:
夏伟兰; 刘冰; 王伶俐; 季新梅*
深圳市龙华区人民医院妇科
Author(s):
XIA Weilan; LIU Bing; WANG Linli; JI Xinmei*
Department of Gynecology,Shenzhen Longhua District People's Hospital,Shenzhen Guangdong 518100,P.R.China
关键词:
剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕憩室; 宫腔镜手术; 宫腹腔镜手术; 阴式手术; 疗效对比
Keywords:
previous cesarean scar defect; hysteroscopy; hysteroscopy combined with laparoscopy; transvaginal uterine scar diverticulum resection
分类号:
R 713
摘要:
目的探讨3种手术方式治疗剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕憩室（previous cesarean scar defect，PCSD）的临床疗效及最佳手术方式。方法回顾性分析2016年11月至2018年11月深圳市龙华区人民医院收治的62例剖宫产术后 PCSD 患者的临床资料，根据手术方式进行分组，其中行经阴道切口憩室修补术23例为A组，行宫腔镜电切术18例为B组，行宫腹腔镜联合手术21例为C组。比较3组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、术后住院时间、术后月经改善及切口憩室恢复情况，分析和评价最佳手术方式。结果A组和B组手术时间［（400±132）min、（350±123） min］短于C组［（800±102） min］,A组和C组术中出血量［（450±85） mL、（500±74） mL］多于B组［（508±16） mL］，A组和C组术后肛门排气时间［（60±23） d、（66±21） d］及住院时间［（50±14） d、（52±13） d］均长于B组［（28±13） d、（21±11） d］，差异均有统计学意义(P＜005)；A组、C组、B组术后月经改善有效率分别为913 % 、905 %、556 %，A组、C组、B组术后憩室恢复有效率分别为870 % 、905 %、333 %，A组和B组比较，B组和C组比较差异有统计学意义(P＜005)，A组、C组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞005)。结论3种手术方式临床上各有优势，但经阴道切口憩室修补术和宫腹腔镜联合手术临床疗效较宫腔镜电切术明显，因此应根据患者具体情况及要求，选择最佳手术方式。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo explore the clinical effects and the best surgical methods of 3 surgical methods for the treatment of previous cesarean scar defect(PCSD).MethodsThe clinical data of 62 patients with PCSD after cesarean section from November 2016 to November 2018 in Shenzhen Longhua District People's Hospital were retrospectively analyzed and grouped according to surgical methods. Among them, 23 cases underwent transvaginal incision diverticulum repair. In group A, 18 cases underwent hysteroscopic electroresection were group B, and 21 cases underwent hysteroscopy combined with laparoscopy in group C. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative anal exhaust time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative menstrual improvement and incision diverticulum recovery of the three groups were compared, and the best surgical method was analyzed and evaluated.ResultsThe operation time of group A and group B ［(400±132 min, (350±123) min］ was shorter than that of group C ［(800±102) min］, the intraoperative blood loss of group A and group C ［(450±85) mL, (500±74) mL］ was more than in group B［(508±16) mL ］, the postoperative anal exhaust time in groups A and C is ［(60±23) d, (66±21) d］, and the length of hospital stay ［(50±14) d, (52±13) d］ were longer than group B ［(28±13) d, (21±11) d］, the differences were statistically significant (P<005); group A, group C, group B menstrual improvement effective rate were 913 %, 905 %, and 556 %, and the effective rates of postoperative diverticulum recovery in groups A, C, and B were 870 %, 905 %,and 333 %, respectively. The differences between group A and group B,group B and group C were statistically significant (P<005) There was no significant difference between group A and group C (P>005).ConclusionEach of the three surgical methods has its own clinical advantages, but the clinical efficacy of the transvaginal group and hysteroscopy group is more obvious than that of the hysteroscopy group. Therefore, the best surgical method is selected according to the patient's specific conditions and requirements.

参考文献/References:

［1］陶峰，周颖等.子宫切口瘢痕憩室的研究进展 ［J］．中华妇产科杂志，2014，49(1):6466. ［2］Schepker N,GarciaRocha GJ，von VF,et al.Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after caesarean section in nonpregnant women ［J］.Arch Gynecol Obstet,2015,291(6):14171423. ［3］Cheng X Y，Cheng L,Li W J，et al.The effect of surgery on subsequent pregnancy outcomes among patients with cesarean scar diverticulum ［J］.Int J Gynaecol Obstet,2018,141(2):212216. ［4］Chen Y,Han P,Wang Y J,et al.Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section ［J］.Arch Gynecol Obstet,2017,296(2):355361. ［5］Pomorski M,Fuchs T,RosnerTenerowicz A,et al.Morphology of the cesarean section scar in the nonpregnant uterus after one elective cesarean section ［J］.Ginekol Pol,2017,88(4):174179. ［6］谢幸 .妇产科学 ［M］.第8版 .北京：人民卫生出版社，2013. ［7］苏翠红，李笑天.剖宫产子宫切口憩室的诊疗进展 ［J］.实用妇产科杂志，2013,29(4):262264. ［8］张宁宁，杨清.腹腔镜下不同方法修复剖宫产子宫瘢痕憩室的临床疗效分析 ［J］.中国医科大学学报，2017,46（9）：853856. ［9］AbacjewChmylko A,Wydra D G,Olszewska H，Hysteroscopy in the treatment of uterine cesarean section scar dinerticulum:A systematic review ［J］.Adv Med Sci,2017,62(2):230239.

相似文献/References:

[1]付鑫,程龙凤,王蔼明,等.宫腔镜手术联合干细胞在宫腔粘连中的应用进展[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2015,(09):0.
[2]杜清华,刘贵朋*.探究预测宫腔镜治疗剖宫产瘢痕妊娠结局的指标[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2019,(10):53.
　DU Qing-hua,LIU Gui-peng*.Exploring indicators of predicting outcome of hysteroscopic surgery in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2019,(6):53.
[3]杨敬红*,谢秀超,何丝思,等.单纯宫腔镜与宫腹腔镜联合治疗纵膈子宫的临床疗效对比研究[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2019,(11):91.
　YANG Jing hong*,XIE Xiu-chao,HE Si-si,et al.Comparative study of clinical efficacy between simple hysteroscopy and laparoscopic combined with hysteroscopy in treatment of mediastinal uterus[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2019,(6):91.
[4]胡乔飞,李长东*,陈素文,等.不同方式治疗225例II型剖宫产瘢痕妊娠的临床病例分析[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2020,(8):19.
　HU Qiaofei,LI Changdong*,CHEN Suwen,et al.Clinical analysis of 225 cases of type II cesarean scar pregnancy treated by different methods[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2020,(6):19.

更新日期/Last Update: 2020-06-25