宫腔镜子宫内膜射频消融术与内膜电切术治疗围绝经期功血疗效比较研究

目的 探讨宫腔镜子宫内膜射频消融术与内膜电切术治疗围绝经期功能失调性子宫出血（功血）的不同临床疗效。方法 收集因围绝经期功血2009年1月至2013年8月于中国医科大学附属盛京医院行宫腔镜手术治疗患者的临床资料共132例，其中宫腔镜子宫内膜射频消融术（消融组）68例，宫腔镜子宫内膜电切术（电切组）64例。比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、治愈率及手术并发症，以评价两者的临床疗效。结果 消融组的手术时间、住院时间比电切组短，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；消融组的出血量较电切组少，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；消融组的治愈率为98.5%，虽优于电切组的93.8%，但两者差异无统计学意义（P>0.05），两组均无手术并发症发生。结论 宫腔镜子宫内膜射频消融术治疗围绝经期功血疗效确切，值得在临床使用。

Clinical study on perimenopausal dysfunctional uterine bleeding treated by bysteroscopic endometrial radiofrequency ablation and endometrial electroresection.

Abstract： Objective To compare different clinical effects in treating perimenopausal dysfunctional uterine bleeding by hysteroscopic endometrial radiofrequency ablation and endometrial electroresection. Methods Choose the clinical data of 132 patients with climacteric dysfunctional uterine bleeding who were treated by hysteroscopic operation in our hospital, of whom 68 were treated by hysteroscopic endometrial radiofrequency ablation (radiofrequency ablation group), 64 were treated by hysteroscopic endometrial electroresection (electroresection group).Compare the operation time, bleeding volumeduring operation, hospital time, cure rate and operation complications between the two groups, so as to evaluate their clinical efficacy. Results The operation time and hospital time were shorter in ablation group than in electroresection group,which display a significant difference (P<0.05). The blood loss in radiofrequency ablation group was less than electroresection group,which displayed a significant difference (P<0.05).The clinical cure rate in radiofrequency ablation group was 98.5%, which was better than electroresection group (93.8%),but there was no statistically significant difference (P> 0.05).No complications occurred in both groups. Conclusion The clinical effect of hysteroscopic endometrial radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of perimenopausal dysfunctionnal uterine bleeding is good, which is worthbeing widely used in clinical practice.