Prolift盆底重建术与传统盆底重建术的临床分析  

The clinical analysis of the Prolift and the traditional pelvic floor reconstructive surgery

作　　者：张瑞[1] 叶宏[1] 

机构地区：[1]成都市第一人民医院妇产科,610016

出　　处：《临床合理用药杂志》2012年第23期28-29,共2页Chinese Journal of Clinical Rational Drug Use

摘　　要：目的评价Prolift盆底重建术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的临床效果及应用价值。方法盆底器官脱垂患者20例随机分为A组8例和B组12例,A组采用Prolift盆底重建术治疗,B组采用传统盆底重建术治疗,比较2组术中、术后情况。结果 A组手术时间、术中出血量少于B组;术后病率、镇痛药物应用率低于B组,肛门排气时间、离床时间、术后住院时间少于B组,住院费用高于B组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后随访6个月,2组复发率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论与传统盆底重建术相比,Prolift盆底重建术具有创伤小、出血少、恢复快及住院时间短等优势,但尚不能完全取代传统盆底重建术。Objective To evaluate the clinical effect and applicate value of the prolift pelvic floor reconstructive surgery in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.Methods 20 patients with pelvic organ prolapse were randomly divided into group A of 8 cases and group B of 12 cases.The group A was given with the prolift pelvic floor reconstructive surgery;the group B was given with the traditional surgery.Then observed and compared the perioperative and postoperative information of 2 groups.Results The average operation time and intraoperative blood loss of the group A were less than that of the group B;the postoperative morbidity and utility ratio of analgesic drugs of the group A were lower than that of the group B;The time for anus exhaust,time for getting down from bed and length of hospital stay of the group A were less than that of the group B,and the differences were statistically significant（P〈0.05）.Patients were followed up 6 months after the surgery,and there was no significant difference of recrudescence between 2 groups（P〈0.05）.Conclusion Compare to the traditional pelvic floor reconstructive surgery,the prolift surgery has the preponderances in smaller wound,less blood loss and the shorter length of hospital stay,with some dominance in certain conditions,but it can not completely replace the traditional surgery.

关 键 词：盆底重建术 盆腔器官脱垂 Prolift补片 

分 类 号：R713[医药卫生—妇产科学]