LEEP与CKC治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变Ⅱ~Ⅲ级对比疗效观察

目的对比研究宫颈环形电切术(LEEP)与宫颈冷刀锥切术(CKC)治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)Ⅱ~Ⅲ的临床效果。方法选取2012年8月至2014年1月收治的85例CINⅡ~Ⅲ级患者为研究对象,按照治疗方法不同随机将其分为两组,即LEEP组和CKC组。观察分析两组患者的手术情况、并发症情况和复发情况。结果 LEEP组脱痂期出血量、术中出血量、手术时间和切口愈合时间均优于CKC组,除脱痂期出血量比较两组差异无显著性(P0.05)外,其余各项指标两组比较差异具有显著性(P0.01)。LEEP组术后并发症发生率8.9%低于CKC组的15.0%,但差异无显著性(P0.05)。LEEP组复发率2.2%低于CKC组5.0%,但差异无无显著性(P0.05)。结论同CKC比较而言,CINⅡ~Ⅲ级患者采用LEEP治疗,手术创伤小,手术操作简单,可减少手术出血量,缩短住院时间,降低住院费用,术后患者身体恢复快,切口愈合时间短,LEEP更具有优势。

comparative efficacy on LEEP and CKC in treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II -III.

Objective Comparative study on clinical results of cervical loop electrosurgical excision procedure （LEEP） and cervical cold knife conization （CKC） in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia （CIN） II - III in patients. Methods 85 cases of CIN II -III grade patients from August 2012 to January 2014 were treated for the study, according to the different treatments were randomly divided into two groups, namely LEEP group and CKC group. To observe and analyse the surgical case, complications and recurrence. Results The scab of bleeding, blood loss, operative time, and wound healing time in LEEP group were better than CKC group, but scab of bleeding was no significant difference between the two groups, the rest of the indicators the difference was significant（ P 〈0.01 ）. The postoperative complication rate and the recurrence rate were all lower than CKC group, but the difference were not statistically significant（ P 〉 0.05）. Conclusion In comparison with the CKC, CIN II - III patients with LEEP treatment, surgical trauma, simple operation, can reduce surgical blood loss, shorter hospital stays and lower hospital costs, faster recovery after surgery the patientg body, wound healing time is short, LEEP more advantages.