经腹、经阴道及腹腔镜辅助经阴道全子宫切除术临床比较

目的比较经腹全子宫切除术（transabdominal hysterectomy,TAH）、非脱垂子宫经阴道全子宫切除术（non-prolapsed transvaginal hysterectomy,TVH）及腹腔镜辅助经阴道全子宫切除术（laparoscopical-ly assisted vaginal hysterectomy,LAVH）的临床特点及应用价值。方法回顾性分析我院因子宫良性疾病行全子宫切除术的365例患者临床资料,按手术方式分为：TAH组（138例）、TVH组（110例）及LAVH组（117例）。比较三组手术时间、术中出血量、术后镇痛率、肛门排气时间、术后病率、术后住院时间以及医疗费用。结果三组术中出血量、术后病率比较无统计学差异（P〉0.05）,TVH组及LAVH组术后镇痛率、术后肛门排气时间及住院时间均少于TAH组（P〈0.05） TAH组及TVH组的手术时间和医疗费用明显低于LAVH组（P〈0.05）。结论TVH术式手术时间短、术后镇痛率低、住院时间短、医疗费用低,兼有TAH及LAVH的优点 临床应根据不同情况选择不同的子宫切除术式以达到最佳治疗效果。     

三种子宫切除术的临床分析

目的：探讨3种子宫切除术的临床效果。方法：回顾分析为598例非脱垂式子宫疾病患者行不同途径子宫切除术的临床资料,其中腹腔镜鞘膜内子宫切除术（laparoscopic intrafascial supercervical hysterectomy,LISH）198例,腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术（laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy,LAVH）200例,传统腹式全子宫切除术（total abdominal hysterectomy,TAH）200例,比较3组患者的手术时间、出血量、术中术后并发症、术后发热率、肛门排气时间、留置尿管时间、下床活动时间、术后住院时间、术后恢复满意性生活的例数及时间等。结果：平均手术时间LISH组显著短于LAVH组、TAH组（P〈0.05）。术中平均出血量LAVH组最多,LISH组最少（P〈0.05）。术后拔尿管时间、下床活动时间LISH组最短（P〈0.05）。术中、术后主要并发症盆腔血肿LAVH组高于其他两组,TAH组切口延期愈合、肠梗阻发生率明显高于其他两组（P〈0.05）,无其他严重并发症发生。术后发热率TAH组显著高于其他两组（P〈0.05）。术后肛门排气时间、住院时间TAH组明显长于其他两组（P〈0.05）,LISH组时间最短。3组患者均于术后3个月恢复性生活,LISH组绝大部分于术后4个月恢复术前性生活的感觉,明显早于其他组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：LISH组手术时间、出血量、下床活动时间、住院时间、恢复满意性生活时间等指标优于LVAH、TAH组。排除宫颈病变的患者行LISH是保留盆底结构完整,更安全可靠、干扰小、康复快的微创术式。     

腹腔镜辅助下阴式子宫全切除术临床应用

<正>全子宫切除术是子宫病变的主要治疗手段之一,经腹全子宫切除术(TAH),经阴道全子宫切除术(TVH)及腹腔镜下全子宫切除术(LH)是目前主要的手术方式。而腹腔镜辅助下阴式子宫全切除术(LAVH)是近年来发展起来的微创手术,以其损伤小、术后恢复好、操作简单,逐渐受到临床医生的重视。为了探讨LAVH的临床应用价值,现将本院近年来所行的LAVH与经腹式子宫全切除术作一比较,报道如下。     

58例腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫全切术临床对照分析

子宫切除术是妇科常见手术之一,近年来,腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫全切术（laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterecto-my,LAVH）的应用逐渐增多。现将本院行LAVH与传统经腹部子宫全切除术（transabdominal hysterectomy,TAH）患者的临床资料进行对比分析,以探讨两种术式的临床优缺点。报道如下。     

腹腔镜辅助阴式与开腹全子宫切除术治疗大子宫的对比分析

目的比较腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术（laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy,LAVH）与开腹全子宫切除术（trans—abdominal hysterectomy,TAH）治疗大子宫的临床效果。方法对我院2003年7月-2008年12月117例大子宫（〉12孕周）行LAVH与110例TAH的手术时间、术中出血量、术后恢复情况进行对比分析。结果TAH组手术时间（109±27）min明显短于LAVH组（130±22）min（t=-6．441,P=0．000）,术中出血量LAVH组（121±70）ml显著少于TAH组（141±73）ml（t=-0．903,P=0．368）。排气时间TAH组（45±13）h明显长于LAVH组（24±6）h（t=15．778,P=0．000）,术后住院时间TAH组（7±2）d显著长于LAVH组（5±2）d（t=7．530,P=0．000）。LAVH组术后3个月随访110例,阴道残端息肉5例,与肠线不吸收有关;TAH组术后3个月随访105例,阴道残端息肉1例。此6例给予摘除息肉后痊愈。结论与TAH相比,LAVH住院时间少,并发症低,即使是大子宫,对许多患者也是安全可行的。     

腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术与经腹子宫切除术的临床疗效分析

目的 对比分析腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术与经腹子宫切除术的临床疗效. 方法 随机选取本院2008年8月至2012年7月收治的112名子宫肌瘤并行子宫全切除的患者,其中腹腔镜下阴式子宫切除术(LAVH组)51例,经腹子宫切除术(TAH)组51例,对比分析两组患者术后发热、血栓性静脉炎、阴道残端感染、胃肠功能紊乱、手术时间及出血量差异. 结果 LAVH组患者术后出现胃肠功能紊乱者2例,无术后发热、血栓性静脉炎、阴道残端感染者,手术平均时间123±6分钟,术中出血量150±30ml;TAH组患者术后出现发热者8例、血栓性静脉炎者3例、阴道残端感染者2例、胃肠功能紊乱者43例,手术平均时间98±4分钟,术中出血量145±28ml.两组术后并发症比较,经统计学检验,两组差距有统计学意义(P=0.015,P＜0.05). 结论 LAVH是一种安全可行的术式,具有腹腔镜及阴式手术共同的微创优点,具有较为广阔的应用及发展前景.     

腹腔镜全子宫切除与开腹全子宫切除术的并发症比较

目的比较腹腔镜全子宫切除术(total laparoscopic hysterectomy,TLH)与开腹全子宫切除术(total abdominal hysterectomy,TAH)的手术并发症。方法回顾性分析我院2004年7月~2008年12月379例TLH与187例TAH的临床资料,比较两者手术并发症。结果除有盆腔手术史者比例TAH组较高外,两种术式患者术前基本特征一致,总的并发症发生率差异无显著性[11.6%(44/379)vs9.6%(18/187),χ2=0.505,P=0.477],但TLH组出现2例术后大出血而再次开腹手术,并且阴道残端炎发生率显著高于TAH组[7.1%(27/379)vs2.7%(5/187),χ2=4.649,P=0.031];在TAH组,发生腹部切口感染8例,下肢静脉血栓2例,而TLH组无此并发症发生。结论两种手术方式各有优势,虽然总的并发症率无显著性差异,但对于盆腔粘连严重、大子宫肌瘤、特殊部位肌瘤,选择TAH较为安全。     

腹腔镜辅助下扩大阴式子宫切除术适应证可行性探讨

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助下扩大阴式子宫切除术适应证的可行性。方法 回顾分析48例腹腔镜辅助下阴式子宫切除术(Laparescopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy，LAVH)和32例阴式子宫切除术(Transvaginal hysterectomy，TVH)的临床资料。结果 LAVH组的手术成功率、适应证明显优于。TVH组而TVH组的术中出血量、手术时间明显少于LAVH组。结论 LAVH明显扩大TVH的适应证，使部分需要经腹子宫切除术(Transabdominal hysterectomy，TAH)的病人避免开腹手术。     

腹腔镜在阴式非脱垂全子宫切除术中的应用

目的:比较改良的非脱垂子宫腹腔镜辅助下阴式全子宫切除术(laparoscop ic-assisted vaginal hysterectony,LAVH)与传统腹式全子宫切除术(trans abdom inal hysterectomy,TAH)的临床应用价值。方法:回顾性分析我院2004年1月至2006年3月86例LAVH和90例TAH患者的临床资料。结果:LAVH组的平均肛门排气时间、平均住院天数、术后疼痛时间明显短于TAH组(P<0.05)。LAVH组的术后并发症明显少于TAH组(P<0.01)。LAVH组手术时间及术中出血量少于TAH组,但无统计学意义。结论:LAVH优于TAH,在临床上有广阔的应用前景。     

子宫全切术式与残留卵巢综合征发生情况及术后服用妈富隆预防效果研究

目的研究子宫全切除术后,由于手术方式不同、手术难易程度不同和术后是否服用“妈富隆”,残留卵巢综合征（ROS）的发生情况。方法（1）术后未服妈富隆,不同术式与残留卵巢综合征发生情况的研究。（2）术后均用三个周期妈富隆,不同术式术后服用妈富隆与残留卵巢综合征发生情况的研究。（3）相同术式术后服用与不服用妈富隆发生残留卵巢综合征情况的研究。结果简单子宫切除术、阴式子宫切除术组未服妈富隆ROS发生率高于服用妈富隆组,但二组差异无统计学意义。困难子宫切除术未服妈富隆ROS发生率高于服用妈富隆组,二组差异有统计学意义,故术后服妈富隆能很好的预防残留卵巢综合征发生,尤其行困难子宫切除术患者,术后须服用妈富隆预防残留卵巢综合征（ROS）发生。行单子宫切除术和阴式子宫切除术患者,术后也应用妈富隆预防残留卵巢综合征的发生。结论妈富隆对预防残留卵巢综合征发生有明显效果。     

腹腔镜下全子宫切除与腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除的比较

目的对比分析腹腔镜全子宫切除术（total laparoscopic hysterectomy,TLH）和腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术（1aparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy,LAVH）的临床价值。方法回顾性比较2007年1月-2012年1月1034例TLH和LAVH的手术时间、出血量、排气时间、住院时间、子宫重量及术后病率、泌尿系损伤、肠管损伤、血管损伤等并发症。结果1034例手术均顺利完成,无中转开腹。TLH组手术时间（80．4±19．2）min与LAVH组（80．2±17．8）min无显著性差异（t=0．166,P=0．868）;LAVH组出血量（53．4±14．3）ml显著多于TLH组（49．84-16．8）ml（t=-3．596,P=0．000）;LAVH组排气时间（27．1±5．5）h显著长于TLH组（24．6±5．1）h（t=-7．059,P=0．000）;LAVH组住院时间（5．4±1．2）d显著长于TLH组（5．1±1．4）d（t=-3．581,P=0．000）。LAVH组切除的子宫重量（286．1±28．2）g,与TLH组（279．6±27．4）g有显著性差异（t=-3．528,P=0．000）。术后病率TLH组1．4％和LAVH组1．7％无显著性差异（∥=0．122,P=0．727）。术后泌尿系统损伤1例（LAVH组）、肠管损伤1例（TLH组）、血管损伤2例（2组各1例）,2组并发症发生率无统计学差异[0．6％（2／345）vs．0．3％（2／689）,X2=0．031,P=0．861]。术后随访0．5～5年,平均3．9年,无切口感染、切口疝、出血等并发症发生。结论TLH和LAVH均是安全可行的。     

不同术式子宫切除术近期并发症的比较

目的评估不同子宫切除术式的安全性. 方法对2 263例腹式全子宫切除 (TAH)、 1 673例腹式次全子宫切除术(STAH)、172例阴式全子宫切除术(TVH)的近期并发症进行分析、比较.结果子宫切除术后总的近期并发症发生率为6.96%(286/4 108),TAH、STAH、TVH的近期并发症发生率分别为7.95%、5.74%、5.81%,TAH明显高于STAH(P<0.01).而TAH与TVH,TVH与STAH之间无显著差异(P>0.05). 结论 TVH和STAH近期并发症较少,相对安全.     

腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术并发脏器损伤

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术（laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy,LAVH）脏器损伤的原因及处理。方法 2009年3月～2010年12月我院行317例LAVH,7例发生脏器损伤。腹腔镜下处理附件后,经阴道缝扎子宫血管、主骶韧带及缝合阴道残端。结果脏器损伤7例,发生率2.2%（7/317）：膀胱损伤3例,直肠损伤2例,输尿管损伤2例。3例膀胱损伤术中行修补术,术后留置导尿2周拔管。2例直肠损伤术中行破口修补缝合,术后流质饮食,排便后正常饮食。2例输尿管损伤,1例术中行输尿管断端缝合术并放置双J管,1例术后25 d开腹探查行输尿管膀胱植入放置双J管治愈。7例术后随访1～3个月,愈合良好,无并发症发生。结论 LAVH并发周围器官损伤与手术难度及手术操作有关。加强手术医师技巧培训及术前评估、注意术后观察,有利于减少并发症、及时发现病情变化。     

腹腔镜与开腹全子宫切除术的临床疗效和对性功能影响的比较

目的：比较腹腔镜下全子宫切除术（ total laparoscopic hysterectomy ,TLH）和开腹全子宫切除术（ total abdominal hysterectomy ,TAH）的临床效果及对性功能的影响。方法回顾性分析2009年1月～2012年12月TLH和TAH各100例的临床资料,比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间及术后12个月性生活满意度等。结果 TLH手术时间明显长于TAH组[（128±11）min vs．（87±33）min,t＝-11．787,P＝0．000],术中出血量明显少于TAH组[（108±37）ml vs．（155±28）ml, t＝-10．129,P＝0．000],住院时间明显短于TAH组[（5．5±1．9）d vs．（8．2±1．6）d,t＝-10．870,P＝0．000]。2组术后性生活频率（Z＝-1．300,P＝0．193）、性欲（Z＝-0．564,P＝0．573）、性高潮（Z＝-1．591,P＝0．112）、性交障碍（Z＝-0．478, P＝0．633）、性生活总体满意度（Z＝-0．083,P＝0．934）均无明显差异;TLH组术后性交痛或性交不适较TAH加重（Z＝-3．752,P ＝0．000）。结论 TLH具有术中出血量少,住院时间短等优点,2种术式对患者术后性生活的影响几乎无差异。     

Magnetic resonance venography in the diagnosis and management of May-Thurner syndrome

Isolated left lower extremity swelling secondary to left iliac vein compression was first described by McMurrich in 1908, and defined anatomically by May and Thurner in 1957 and clinically by Cockett and Thomas in 1965. The left iliac vein is usually located posterior to the right iliac artery and can be compressed between the artery and the fifth lumbar vertebrae. Symptoms include left lower extremity edema, pain, varicosities, venous stasis changes, and deep venous thrombosis. Evaluation of these patients historically included a venous duplex scan to rule out deep venous thrombosis and an abdominal computed tomography scan to rule out pelvic mass. This paper describes the use of magnetic resonance imaging and venography in the evaluation of patients with isolated left lower extremity swelling. A retrospective analysis of a series of 24 patients who presented with symptomatic left lower extremity edema was performed. Infrainguinal deep venous thrombosis and valvular reflux was evaluated by duplex scan. The presence of suprainguinal deep venous thrombosis and pelvic mass was evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to define the anatomic characteristics of the May-Thurner syndrome. Patients identified with the syndrome were treated either conservatively with lower extremity compression and elevation or with angioplasty and stenting. Follow-up of this subset of patients was performed with clinical assessment of the resolution of their symptomatic lower extremity edema as well as quality of life assessments via phone interviews. Twenty-four patients were evaluated for isolated left lower extremity swelling. Seven patients had positive results on duplex scans for deep venous thrombosis. Magnetic resonance imaging results demonstrated 1/24 (4%) had a pelvic mass compressing the iliac vein; 2/24 (8%) patients had iliac vein thrombosis; 1/24 (4%) patients with a history of deep venous thrombosis demonstrated a long stenotic segment of the left iliac vein unrelated to its association with the right iliac artery; 9/24 patients (37%) had anatomic evidence of May-Thurner syndrome; and 2/24 patients (8%) had isolated left lower extremity swelling of unknown etiology. Five patients diagnosed with May-Thurner syndrome were treated conservatively with compression stockings and leg elevation. Four patients with May-Thurner syndrome underwent iliac vein angioplasty and stenting. Technical success was 100%. On clinical follow-up, the patients with May-Thurner syndrome have had improvement/resolution of their symptoms. There have been no complications from either therapy. May-Thurner syndrome is a clinical entity of left iliac vein compression by the right iliac artery, resulting in isolated left lower extremity swelling and may be a precipitating factor for iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis. Magnetic resonance imaging is the best modality for diagnosis of this entity as it can rule out the presence of pelvic masses and deep venous thrombosis while simultaneously demonstrating the anatomy characteristic of this syndrome.     

Iatrogenic operative injuries of abdominal and pelvic veins: a potentially lethal complication

PURPOSE: Epidemiologic studies of vascular injuries are usually limited to those caused by trauma. The purpose of this study was to review the management and clinical outcome in patients with operative injuries to abdominal and pelvic veins. METHODS: Clinical data and outcome in all patients with iatrogenic venous injuries during abdominal and pelvic operations between 1985 and 2002 were reviewed. RESULTS: Forty patients (21 men, 19 women; mean age, 51 years [range, 27-87 years]) sustained 44 venous injuries. Injuries occurred during general (30%), colorectal (23%), orthopedic (20%), gynecologic (15%), and other (12%) operations. Factors leading to injury included oncologic resection (65%), difficult anatomic exposure (63%), previous operation (48%), recurrent tumor (28%), and radiation therapy (20%). All patients had substantial bleeding (mean, 3985 mL; range, 500-20,000 mL). Injuries were located in the inferior vena cava (n = 6), portal vein (n = 7), renal vein (n = 1), and iliac vein (n = 30). Repair was performed with venorrhaphy (64%), end-to-end anastomosis (14%), interposition graft (20%), and vessel ligation (2%). Seven patients (18%) died of injury-related causes, including multisystem organ failure (n = 4), uncontrollable bleeding (n = 2), and pulmonary embolism (n = 1). Thirteen patients (32.5%) had major injury-related complications, including repeat exploration because of bleeding (n = 6), multisystem organ failure (n = 6), and venous thrombosis (n = 4). In two patients (5%) unilateral lower extremity edema developed, with no evidence of thrombosis. There was no late graft or venous thrombosis. Variables associated with increased risk for death were massive bleeding, acidosis, hypotension, and hypothermia (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Operative injuries of abdominal and pelvic veins occur in patients undergoing oncologic resection and those with difficult anatomic exposure, owing to previous operation, recurrent tumor, or radiation therapy. Massive blood loss, acidosis, hypotension, and hypothermia are associated with increased risk for death. Repair of venous injuries offers durable results with low incidence of graft or venous thrombosis.