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/OL]. 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/OL]. 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] 陈向军, 于丽, 王星, 梁俊青, 吴迪, 李志军. 采用不同方法联合放射治疗修复薄型瘢痕疙瘩的临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(03): 215-222.
[2] 陈浩, 王萌. 胃印戒细胞癌的临床病理特征及治疗选择的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 108-111.
[3] 刘连新, 孟凡征. 不断提高腹腔镜解剖性肝切除的规范化[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 355-358.
[4] 刘柏隆. 女性压力性尿失禁阶梯治疗之手术治疗方案选择[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 126-126.
[5] 仝聪, 周哲琦, 阎立昆. 食管裂孔疝合并胃食管反流病治疗现状及与胃食管结合部肿瘤的关系[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 491-493.
[6] 蒋凤茹, 朱熠林. 双腔造瘘口旁疝诊疗经验[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 534-537.
[7] 翁桂湖, 刘悦泽, 张太平. 胰腺神经内分泌肿瘤治疗进展与争议[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 602-606.
[8] 邱小原, 刘雨馨, 李珂璇, 林国乐, 邱辉忠, 安燚. 直肠肿瘤术后直肠阴道瘘的外科治疗[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 423-430.
[9] 曲洋, 蒋浩然, 邢博涵, 张蒙, 张培训. 肩袖损伤的治疗进展[J/OL]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2024, 12(04): 289-291.
[10] 杨仁豪, 庄澄宇, 王蕾. Rockwood III型肩锁关节脱位的治疗研究进展[J/OL]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2024, 12(01): 88-93.
[11] 曹文钰, 郭鹏, 李锦平. 微创手术及非手术方式治疗慢性硬膜下血肿的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 304-309.
[12] 李晓东, 李昂, 马龙, 刘亮, 魏云, 王汉宇. 基底动脉顶端动脉瘤显微手术治疗[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(04): 254-256.
[13] 赖丽, 尧小龙, 李俊. 烟雾病合并血流相关性动脉瘤二例报道并文献复习[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(02): 122-125.
[14] 景方坤, 周建波, 王全才, 黄海韬, 李岩峰, 徐杨熙. 神经导航引导下治疗基底节高血压脑出血的短期疗效预测[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(03): 154-159.
[15] 刘虎, 任振, 韦笑韩, 潘晨, 吴立胜. 胃食管反流伴食管运动障碍的诊疗进展[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 153-158.
阅读次数
全文


摘要