介入性输卵管再通术与输卵管加压通液治疗输卵管阻塞的比较

The comparison of interventional tubal recanalization and drug irrigation recanalization in the management of oviduct obstruction

目的 使用介入性输卵管再通术治疗输卵管阻塞性不孕症 ,观察治疗效果 ,并与输卵管加压通液治疗本病的效果进行比较。方法 选观察组 18例 ,输卵管 36支 ;对照组 10例 ,输卵管2 0支。观察组行选择性输卵管再通术 ,对照组仅用输卵管加压通液治疗。所有病例 6个月后复查。结果 再通成功率观察组 6 1 1% (2 2 / 36 ) ,对照组 30 0 % (6 / 2 0 )。两者比较差异具有显著性意义 (P <0 0 5 )。再复发者观察组 4支 ,对照组 1支。结论 介入性输卵管再通术疗效显著优于传统输卵管加压通液治疗 ,该技术操作安全简单、成功率高 。

Objective To explore and compare the efficacy of the interventional and drugs irrigation tube recanalization for infertile women with fallopian tube obstruction Methods Eighteen patients with 36 tubal obstructions in the research group were treated with interventional tube recanalization and drugs infusion into tube through catheter Other 10 cases with 20 tubal obstructions in the comparison group were treated only with drugs irrigation. All cases received followed up examination in 6 months Results The successful rates of recanalization were 61 1% (22/36) in the research group and 30 0% (6/20) in the comparison group, respectively There was significant difference between the two groups ( P <0 05) The recurrence was 4 tube in the research group 1 tube in the comparison group six months Conclusion The interventional tubal recanalization is a simple, safe, and more effective treatment method of choice compared with the tubal recanalization with the traditional drug irrigation for fallopian tube obstruction