宫腔镜宫颈病变电切术与宫颈环形电切术治疗慢性中、重度宫颈炎的对比研究

Comparison of Transcervical Resection and Loop Electrical Excision Procedure for the Treatment of Moderate-to-severe Chronic Cervicitis

目的比较宫腔镜宫颈病变电切术与宫颈环形电切术治疗慢性中、重度宫颈炎的临床疗效。方法2003年1月～2006年7月将520例慢性中、重度宫颈炎根据门诊预约手术号奇偶数分为2组,分别采用宫腔镜宫颈病变电切术(TCRC组)与宫颈环形电切术(LEEP组)进行治疗。结果TCRC的术中出血量(4.2±1.3)ml明显少于LEEP组(10.1±4.5)ml(t=-20.310,P=0.000);TCRC组排液及出血时间(15.9±3.7)d与LEEP组(16.2±3.3)d无明显差异(t=-0.976,P=0.330);TCRC组与LEEP组治愈率无统计学差异[95.2%(236/248)vs 93.2%(235/252),χ2=0.832,P=0.362]。结论TCRC与LEEP是治疗慢性中、重度宫颈炎的有效方法,TCRC治疗慢性中、重度宫颈炎优于LEEP,但LEEP较TCRC易于掌握、更易普及。

Objective To compare the therapeutic effects of transcervieal resection （TCRC） and loop electrical excision procedure （LEEP） for the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic eervicitis. Methods From January 2003 to July 2006, totally 520 patients with moderate-to-severe chronic cervicitis were randomly divided into two groups to receive TCRC or LEEP. Results The intraoperative blood loss in the TCRC group was significantly less than that in the LEEP group [ （4.2 ± 1.3 ） ml vs （ 10. 1 ± 4.5） ml, t = -20. 310, P = 0. 000]. Whereas, no significantly differences were found in the drainage and bleeding time and cure rates between the two groups [（15.9± 3.7） d vs （16.2 ± 3.3） d, t = -0.976, P =0.330; and 95.2% （236/248） vs 93.2% （235/252） , X^2 = 0. 832, P = 0. 362 ]. Conclusions Both TCRC and LEEP are effective for chronic cervicitis. TCRC is superior to LEEP in the surgical outcomes; however the latter is easier to perform than TCRC.