3种手术方法治疗大隐静脉曲张的临床对比分析  

A Comparative Analysis of Three Different Surgical Approaches for Treatment of Great Saphenous Vein Varicosity

作　　者：殷春[1] 张喜清[1] 方伊刚[1] 郭振平[1] 

机构地区：[1]内蒙古鄂尔多斯市中心医院胸心血管外科,内蒙古鄂尔多斯017000

出　　处：《中国医药指南》2013年第7期16-18,共3页Guide of China Medicine

摘　　要：目的通过对比分析采用3种不同术式治疗大隐静脉曲张的疗效。方法回顾分析我科2007年1月至2012年1月以来收治的420例大隐静脉曲张(GSVV)病例,分别采用传统金属剥脱器(TS),高位结扎联合血管腔内激光(ELCHL),微创剥脱器(MIS)治疗,其中传统金属剥脱器组(传统组)158例,高位结扎联合血管腔内激光(激光组)102例,微创剥脱器(微创组)160例,比较3组在手术时间,术中出血量,住院时间,术后并发症发生率,复发率方面的差异。结果微创组及激光组与传统组相比,手术时间、术中出血量及住院天数显著降低(P<0.01)。微创组及激光组与传统组相比,术后并发症发生率及复发率显著降低(P<0.01)。微创组较激光组在手术时间、术中出血量及住院天数方面无显著差异(P>0.01),术后并发症发生率及复发率之间无显著差异(P>0.01)。结论微创组及激光组较传统组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症、复发率方面存在显著优势,微创组与激光组比临床疗效无明显差异。Objective To comparatively analysis the treatment effects of three surgical approaches for great saphenous vein varicosity. Methods To retrospective analysis 420 cases GSW from January 2007 to January 2012. All samlples were respectively treated by traditional stripper （TS, 158 cases）, endogenous laser combined with high ligation （ELCHL, 102 cases） or minimally invasive stripper （MIS, 160 cases）; it was compared each group that mean length of hospital stay, time of surgery, postoperative complications, healing time and recurrence rate. Results Mean length of hospital stay, time of surgery and healing time in MIS and ELCHL groups was notable shorter than that in TS group （P〈0.01）. Recurrence rate and postoperative complications in MIS and ELCHL groups was notable shorter than that in TS group （P〈0.01）. Hospital stay, time of surgery, postoperative complications, healing time and recurrence rate were similar in MIS and ELCHL group （P〉0.01）. Conclusion The therapeutic effect of surgery for GSVV with MIS was as good as surgery with ELCHL, and both has obviously advantage than TS.

关 键 词：大隐静脉曲张 传统金属剥脱器 高位结扎联合血管腔内激光 微创剥脱器 

分 类 号：R543.6[医药卫生—心血管疾病]