LEEP与CKC术治疗CIN Ⅲ级的临床对比研究  

Clinical comparative study of loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold-knife conization in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Ⅲ

作　　者：朱辉玲[1] 

机构地区：[1]长沙市妇幼保健院,湖南长沙410007

出　　处：《中国妇幼健康研究》2013年第5期735-737,共3页Chinese Journal of Woman and Child Health Research

摘　　要：目的比较环形电切术(LEEP)与冷刀锥切术(CKC)治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级(CINⅢ)的临床疗效。方法将65例CINⅢ级患者随机分为LEEP组(33例)和CKC组(32例)。术后随访1-9个月,比较两组的痊愈率、手术时间、术中出血量以及术后并发症情况。结果 LEEP组与CKC组的痊愈率分别为97.0%(32/33)和93.8%(30/32),两组比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。LEEP组的手术时间和术中出血量分别为(7.9±3.4)分钟和(10.2±3.1)mL,显著少于CKC组(t值分别为19.774、20.131,均P<0.05)。两组的术后并发症(术后出血、宫颈粘连、盆腔感染、下腹部胀痛)发生率比较均无显著性差异(均P>0.05)。结论 LEEP术治疗CINⅢ的手术创伤小、治愈率高,是治疗该疾病的理想方法 。Objective To compare the clinical effects of loop electrosurgical excision procedure （ LEEP） and cold-knife conization （ CKC） in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Ⅲ （ CINⅢ） .Methods Sixty-five patients with CINⅢ were randomly divided into LEEP group （n=33） and CKC group （n=32）.After following up for 1-9 months, the cure rate, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were observed and compared between two groups .Results The cure rate of LEEP group and CKC group was 97.0%（32/33）and 93.8%（30/32）, respectively, and there was no significant difference between two groups （P〉0.05）.The operation time and intraoperative blood loss of LEEP group was 7.9 ±3.4min and 10.2 ±3.1mL, respectively, which was significantly less than CKC group （t value was 19.774 and 20.131, respectively, both P 〈0.05）.The difference in the incidence rate of postoperative complications （ such as postoperative bleeding , cervical adherence , pelvic cavity infection and lower abdominal pain ） was not significant between two groups（all P〉0.05）.Conclusion The operative wound is small and cure rate is high with LEEP .LEEP is an ideal way to treat CIN Ⅲ.

关 键 词：宫颈上皮内瘤变 环形电切术术 冷刀锥切术 临床疗效 

分 类 号：R713[医药卫生—妇产科学]