96例宫颈活检结果与宫颈锥切术后病检结果比较  

Comparation of pathological results of conization and cervix biopsy

作　　者：黄金[1] 杨鹰[1] 

机构地区：[1]第三军医大学新桥医院妇产科,重庆400037

出　　处：《重庆医学》2009年第8期951-952,共2页Chongqing medicine

摘　　要：目的比较宫颈活检结果与宫颈锥切术后病检结果的差异,并评价宫颈多点活检在CIN诊断中的准确性和宫颈锥切术的诊治价值。方法对96例患者行阴道镜下多点活检,并行宫颈锥切术后标本送病检,比较两种方法结果的差异。结果设同一病理级别为相符,54例宫颈锥切病理诊断结果与术前活检病理结果符合,占56.3%;42例结果不符合,占43.7%。其中,术后结果较严重者10例,占不符合例数的23.8%,占总例数的10.4%;较轻者32例,占不符合例数的76.2%,占总例数的33.3%。结论仅根据宫颈多点活检结果指导临床对CIN的诊断和治疗有其局限性,若为中、重度不典型增生应行宫颈锥切术,兼具诊断和治疗作用。Objective To investigate the differences of pathological results between multiple sites biopsy and cold knife cervical conization, and to evaluate the accurancy of cervix biopsy, and the diagnostic and therapeutic value of cervical eonization for the pa tients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia（CIN）. Methods 96 patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia were performed cold knife conization, and the results of the two methods were compared. Results On the premise that the coordinate pathological levels were the same, 54 cases were accordant with cervix biopsy results after conization, while 42 cases were not. Among the 42 cases, 10 patients＇（10/96, 10.4%） diagnostic results after conization were more serious than that of biopsy, and 32 patients＇（32/ 56, 76.2%） were milder. Conclusion It is insufficient to diagnose and treat the patients with CIN only based on cervix biopsy. Cervical conization plays an important role in diagnosing and treating patients, especially those with moderate and sever cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

关 键 词：宫颈锥切术 诊断 治疗 

分 类 号：R737.33[医药卫生—肿瘤] R730.56[医药卫生—临床医学]