两种宫颈锥切方法治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级的临床效果对比

Different CervicaI Conization in the Treatment of CervicaI IntraepitheliaI NeoplasiaⅢ

目的对宫颈冷刀锥切术(CKC)和宫颈环行电切除术(LEEP)治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级(CINⅢ)的疗效给予临床对比研究。方法分析我院2011年12月至2013年6月宫颈病专科门诊收治的89例CINⅢ患者的临床资料,比较CKC和LEEP两种手术方法治疗CINⅢ的临床疗效。结果 LEEP组术中出血量少于CKC组,差异有高度统计学意义(P<0.05);LEEP组手术时间短于CKC组,差异有高度统计学意义(P<0.05);术后两组病灶的残留率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后病变复率CKC组低于LEEP组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论两种方法治疗CINⅢ,LEEP出血少、手术时间短、易于被患者接受,但CKC在减少复发方面优于LEEP。

Objective To evaluate the clinical effects of cold knife conization（CKC） and loop electrosurgi- cal excision procedure（ LEEP） in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasiaⅢ （CIN Ⅲ ）. Methods Analysis of the clinical data was carrried out in 89 cases with CIN Ⅲ from December 2011 to June 2013. The clinical effects of CKC and LEEP in the treatment of CIN Ⅲ were compared. Results The blood loss during operation in CKC group was significantly more than that in LEEP group. There was statistic significance（P 〈 0.05）. The operation time of CKC was longer than that of LEEP（P 〈 0.05）. There was no statistically significant difference of residual rate between these two groups（P 〉0.05）. but the recurrent rate in CKC group was significantly lower than that in LEEP group（P 〈 0.05）. There was statistic significance. Conclusions For proper treatment of CIN Ⅲ, alough fewer blood loss, shorter operation time and being acceptable for patients of LEEPo CKC is super selection to LEEP with low recurrent rates.