宫颈冷刀锥切术和宫颈环形电切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级的效果对比

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (15)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (23 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract ObjectiveTo explore contrast cervical cold knife cuts（CKC） and the cervical cone annular cutting （LEEP）treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia（CIN）Ⅲ level effect.Methods82 CINⅢ patients who treated in our hospital from April 2014 to July 2015 were selected for this study.They were divided into two groups according to the random number table method,41 cases in each group.One group patients were treated with CKC,referred to as CKC group.The other were treated with LEEP,referred to as LEEP group.The clinical data of the two groups were observed and recorded.ResultsThe operation time,intraoperative blood loss and postoperative cervical healing time of the two groups of patients was compared,LEEP group were lower than the CKC group,the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P＜0.05).The recurrence of the two groups of patients at 3,6,12 and 22 months after surgery was compared,CKC group was lower than LEEP group，the difference between the two was statistically significant(P＜0.05).HPV infection between the two groups of patients was compared,patients in the CKC group were significantly lower than those in the LEEP group,the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).ConclusionTraditional CKC and LEEP surgery have their own characteristics.The advantages of LEEP is quick and easy operation.Its trauma is small and patients′recovery time is short.But there is also disadvantage,like small range of cutting and cutting edge relapsing easily.Therefore for the treatment of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,the decision should be made according to their concrete condition and need.

Key words： Cervical cold knife conization Cervical resection Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia gradeⅢ Clinical efficacy

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	ZHENG Man-jia

Cite this article:

ZHENG Man-jia. Comparison of the effect of cervical cold knife conization and cervical resection for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia[J]. 中国当代医药, 2018, 25(2): 77-79.

URL:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/ OR http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/Y2018/V25/I2/77

[1]	刘虹岚.宫颈冷刀锥切术与宫颈环行电切除术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级的临床疗效比较[J].现代诊断与治疗，2016，27（2）:356-357.
[2]	李奇艳，林进，廖洋，等.Leep刀宫颈电锥切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变的临床分析[J].当代医学，2015，21（6）：36-37.
[3]	谷丽静.LEEP刀宫颈锥切术联合术前术后应用重组α-2b干扰素栓治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变临床疗效分析[J].中国计划生育学杂志，2015，23（9）：600-602.
[4]	林铁成.LEEP锥切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变3级的临床疗效与术后并发症探讨[J].吉林医学，2014，34（24）：4977.
[5]	姚威.宫颈环形电切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变的疗效观察[J].中国实用医药，2015，10（22）：85-86.
[6]	陈玉梅，金黎，陈惠琴.不同宫颈锥切方法治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级的临床疗效评价[J].当代医学，2012，18（19）：102-104.
[7]	吴雨育，洪少妹.宫颈环形电切术后联合不同药物治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变临床效果观察[J].北方药学，2016，13（6）：191-192.
[8]	姜晓予.LEEP刀与电刀锥切治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变的疗效比较[J].中国医药科学，2014，4（8）:208-210.
[9]	赵海英，管燕，马潇潇，等.宫颈环形电切术与冷刀宫颈锥切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变的临床效果比较[J].临床合理用药，2015，8（32）：18-19.
[10]	周洁云.宫颈环形电切术与冷刀锥切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变的临床效果对比[J].河北医学，2015，18（11）：1607-1609.
[11]	胡淑霞，梅丽，王志慧.宫颈锥切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变的临床疗效观察[J].中国妇幼保健，2015，30（4）：960-962.
[12]	邹洁宁.宫颈环形电切术与冷刀锥切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变的临床效果[J].现代医药卫生，2015，13（15）：2326-2327.
[13]	马利国，李明娥，谢红，等.两种宫颈锥切方法治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级的临床疗效评价[J].实用妇产科杂志，2010，26（2）：118-120.
[14]	杨佩贤.两种宫颈锥切方法治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变的临床疗效比较[J].广州医科大学学报，2015，43（4）：73-75.
[15]	李莉，赵霞，张绪婷，等.宫颈环形电切术与冷刀锥切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变的Meta分析[J].中国妇幼保健，2017，32（10）：2258-2263.