剖宫产瘢痕部位妊娠三种治疗方法的比较

Comparison of Three Treatment Methods for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy

目的分析临床上治疗剖宫产瘢痕部位妊娠的三种方法的疗效及优缺点。方法选取我科收治的剖宫产瘢痕部位妊娠(CSP)患者43例,根据其治疗方法 ,将其中41例分为三组:介入组(双侧子宫动脉栓塞术后清宫术,27例)、药物组(药物治疗后清宫术,8例)、手术组(阴式瘢痕病灶清除术,6例),比较三组患者的一般情况、住院天数、住院费用。结果三组患者住院时间、住院费用的组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。其中介入组的住院时间最短,费用最高;药物组的住院时间最长,费用最低。结论三种治疗方法各有其优缺点,需根据医院及科室的实际情况、患者的意愿及依从性等进行选择。

Objective To explore the clinical effects of three methods in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy （CSP）. Methods Atotal of 43 cases of patients with CSP admitted to our department were selected in this study. According to their different therapies, 41 casesof them were divided into three groups interventional group with curettage after uterine artery embolization （27 cases）, drug group withcurettage after drug therapy （8 cases） and operation group with transvaginal focal surgery （6 cases）. The general conditions, hospitalizationdays and hospitalization expenses were compared among three groups. Results The hospitalization days and expenses had statisticaldifferences among three groups （P 〈0.05）. Among three groups, the hospitalization days of interventional group were shortest and thehospitalization expenses were highest, while the hospitalization days of drug group were longest and the hospitalization expenses were lowest.Conclusions Three therapies of CSP have advantages and disadvantages. Suitable therapy need to be chosen depending on the actualsituation of hospital and department, and patients＇ wishes and compliance.