切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床医师杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (03) : 161 -164. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2019.03.001

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

三种手术方式治疗剖宫产瘢痕憩室的疗效对比
胡佩1, 朱海斌1,()   
  1. 1. 310000 杭州,浙江大学医学院附属第一医院妇产科
  • 收稿日期:2018-12-17 出版日期:2019-02-01
  • 通信作者: 朱海斌

Comparison of therapeutic effects of three surgical approaches for cesarean scar diverticulum

Pei Hu1, Haibin Zhu1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310000, China
  • Received:2018-12-17 Published:2019-02-01
  • Corresponding author: Haibin Zhu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhu Haibin, Email:
引用本文:

胡佩, 朱海斌. 三种手术方式治疗剖宫产瘢痕憩室的疗效对比[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(03): 161-164.

Pei Hu, Haibin Zhu. Comparison of therapeutic effects of three surgical approaches for cesarean scar diverticulum[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(03): 161-164.

目的

探讨3种手术方式治疗剖宫产瘢痕憩室(CSD)的疗效。

方法

选择2013年1月至2018年1月浙江大学医学院附属第一医院经阴道超声诊断为CSD的患者80例:40例行宫腔镜下憩室电切割术(宫腔镜组),30例行宫腹腔镜联合憩室修补术(宫腹腔镜联合组),10例行阴式憩室修补术(阴式组)。对3组患者的年龄、剖宫产次数、术前经期、手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、住院费用等指标,多组比较采用方差分析,两两比较采用LSD法。对3组患者术后随访12个月的治疗有效情况和复发情况采用χ2检验,两两比较采用χ2分割法,采用BONFERRONI法进行校正。

结果

宫腔镜组、宫腹腔镜联合组和阴式组3组患者年龄、剖宫产次数、术前经期比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。宫腔镜组手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数、住院费用均明显少于宫腹腔镜联合组、阴式组(F=198.300,P<0.001;F=19.610,P<0.001;F=29.450,P<0.001;F=342.880,P<0.001)。3组患者术后随访12个月治疗有效率和复发率比较,差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。

结论

3种手术方式治疗CSD均具有良好的有效性,宫腔镜下憩室电切割术临床应用价值更高。

Objective

To compare the therapeutic effects of three surgical approaches for cesarean scar diverticulum (CSD).

Methods

From January 2013 to January 2018, 80 patients diagnosed with CSD by transvaginal ultrasound at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University were selected and divided into three groups: 40 patients who underwent hysteroscopic electrical incision of the diverticulum (hysteroscopic group), 30 patients who were treated by hysteroscopic-laparoscopic diverticulum repair (hysteroscopic-laparoscopic group), and 10 patients who underwent transvaginal repair of CSD (transvaginal group). For age, frequency of cesarean section, preoperative menstrual period, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization expenses, and other indicators of the three groups, ANOVA was used for comparison among multiple groups, and LSD method was used for pairwise comparison. The efficacy and recurrence in the three groups within 12 months of follow-up were evaluated by the Chi-square test, pairwise comparison was performed by Chi-square segmentation, and they were finally corrected by the BONFERRONI method.

Results

The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and hospitalization cost of the hysteroscopic group were significantly less than those of the hysteroscopic-laparoscopic group and the transvaginal group (F=198.300, P<0.001; F=19.610, P<0.001; F=29.450, P<0.001; F=342.880, P<0.001), but there was no significant difference in age, frequency of cesarean section, or preoperative menstrual period among the three groups (P>0.05). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy or recurrence among the three groups within 12 months of follow-up (P>0.05).

Conclusion

All the three surgical methods have good effectiveness in the treatment of CSD, and hysteroscopic electrical incision of the diverticulum has higher clinical application value.

表1 3组患者一般资料比较(±s
表2 3组患者术中及术后情况比较(±s
表3 3组患者术后随访12个月治疗有效情况和复发情况比较[例(%)]
1
Urman B, Arslan T, Aksu S, et al. Laparoscopic repair of cesarean scar defect ″isthmocele″ [J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2016, 23(6): 857-858.
2
Talamonte VH, Lippi UG, Lopes RG, et al. Hysteroscopic findings in patients with post-menstrual spotting with prior cesarean section [J]. Einstein (Sao Paulo), 2012, 10(1): 53-56.
3
Allornuvor GF, Xue M, Zhu X, et al. The definition, aetiology, presentation, diagnosis and management of previous caesarean scar defects [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2013, 33(8): 759-763.
4
王马列, 梁润彩. 阴式手术治疗剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室53例疗效观察 [J]. 暨南大学学报(自然科学与医学版), 2013, 34(4): 417-420.
5
Brown K, Tkacz Z. Hysteroscopic and laparoscopic management of caesarean scar (niche) defects in symptomatic patients [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2018, 38(5): 730.
6
Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D, et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study [J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2011, 18(2): 234-237.
7
Zhang X, Yang M, Wang Q, et al. Prospective evaluation of five methods used to treat cesarean scar defects [J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2016, 134(3): 336-339.
8
Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q, et al. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula [J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2012, 19(4): 454-458.
[1] 庞嘉越成, 巨淑慧, 马冀青, 李恒宇, 盛湲. 乳腺癌易感基因突变人群接受降低乳腺癌风险手术的研究进展[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 179-183.
[2] 杨一君, 董雯, 刘晓平, 石灿, 张磊, 谷琎, 龚咪, 华馥. 腹腔镜折叠对接缝合联合宫腔镜憩室开渠法治疗剖宫产瘢痕憩室的疗效[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(03): 330-337.
[3] 古丽米拉·亚森江, 阿依努尔·艾尔肯, 李佳隆, 郭强, 蒋铁民, 吐尔干艾力·阿吉. 胆囊切除术后胆管损伤不同治疗方式的疗效分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 262-266.
[4] 张明, 谭钦元, 杨为杰, 王晓庆. 膀胱鳞状细胞癌的诊治进展[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 90-92.
[5] 张晓贝, 曹栋, 杨宝顺, 俞永江. 肝硬化腹水合并腹股沟疝的临床治疗进展[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 121-124.
[6] 赵佳音, 张晓萌, 张艳, 李立, 王瑞灯. 创伤后肘关节僵硬的病理机制及治疗进展[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 181-185.
[7] 张涛, 崔进, 周启荣, 陈晓, 苏佳灿. 肩锁关节脱位的治疗进展[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(01): 77-82.
[8] 郝壮, 马济远, 何梦梅, 李兴育, 陆新婷, 武静, 周健. 迟发性囊袋阻滞综合征临床特征、治疗方法及其疗效的临床研究[J]. 中华眼科医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(02): 70-75.
[9] 钟东. 大脑凸面脑膜瘤的个体化全程管理[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(04): 193-198.
[10] 廖环, 徐蛟天, 张海涛, 邱光庭, 蒋成昊, 陈进, 邹景芳, 张志文. 颈椎管内外节细胞神经瘤一例报道及文献复习[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 186-189.
[11] 朱敏, 李法强. CD64指数联合降钙素原、白介素-6、血清淀粉样蛋白A检测对重型颅脑损伤术后颅内细菌感染的诊断价值[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(01): 26-31.
[12] 刘家伦, 郑占乐. 跟骨载距突解剖与临床应用现状[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 188-192.
[13] 马四海, 杨剑, 马显武, 张敏, 吕明礼, 李启菊, 杨轶声, 刘海生. Shamblin Ⅱ型颈动脉体瘤的诊疗及文献综述[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 467-470.
[14] 王新桥, 马超英, 张旭光. 纵隔单中心型Castleman病诊治体会及文献复习[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(03): 183-187.
[15] 江凯乐, 杨异. 肋骨骨折的手术治疗进展及存在问题[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(03): 149-152.
阅读次数
全文


摘要