宫颈环形电切术与冷刀锥切术治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级的临床效果

The Clinical Effect of Cervical Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure and Cold Knife Conization in the Treatment of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Ⅲ

目的:比较宫颈环形电切术(LEEP)与冷刀锥切术(CKC)治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级的临床效果.方法:将2017年1月-2018年12月笔者所在医院收住的136例CINⅢ级患者根据手术方法分为LEEP组和CKC组,分别施行LEEP手术与CKC手术,比较两组患者手术时间、术中失血量、住院时间、伤口愈合时间、治疗费用,并发症发生情况及临床疗效.结果:LEEP组患者手术时间、住院时间、伤口愈合时间均明显短于CKC组,术中失血量、治疗费用均明显少于CKC组(P<0.05).LEEP组术后并发症发生率明显低于CKC组(P<0.05).两组临床疗效比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论:宫颈环形电切术与冷刀锥切术均为治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅲ级的有效术式,但宫颈环形电切术在手术时间、失血量、术后恢复及并发症发生率方面较优.

Objective:To compare the clinical effect of cervical loop electrosurgical excision procedure(LEEP)and cold knife conization(CKC)in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasiaⅢ.Method:A total of 136 cases of CINⅢpatients from January 2017 to December 2018 in our hospital were divided into LEEP group and CKC group by the treatment method,they were treated with LEEP and CKC.The operation time,the hospital stays,the wound healing time,the treatment costs,the incidence of complication and the clinical effect of the two groups were compared.Result:The operation time,the hospital stays,the wound healing time of the LEEP groups were significantly shorter than those of the CKC group(P<0.05).The incidence rate of postoperative complications in the LEEP groups were significantly lower than that in the CKC group(P<0.05).There was no significantly difference between the two groups in the effect(P>0.05).Conclusion:LEEP and CKC are effective methods for the CINⅢ.But LEEP has the priority in operation time,amount of blood boss,healing time and the incidence rate of complication.