不同子宫动脉处理方法在腹腔镜下子宫次全切除术中的比较

目的比较不同子宫动脉处理方法在腹腔镜下子宫次全切除术中的临床意义。方法 2010年5月～2011年5月,行腹腔镜下子宫次全切除术124例,按手术组的不同,其中63例双极电凝、剪刀切断双侧子宫动脉（研究组）,61例单纯套扎双侧子宫动脉（对照组）。对两组手术时间、出血量、体温恢复时间、肛门排气时间、住院时间及术后并发症等情况进行比较。结果与对照组相比,研究组手术时间短（78.2±14.3）min vs.（87.5±11.7）min,t=-3.956,P=0.000],术后住院时间短（4.1±0.9）d vs.（4.8±1.1）d,t=-3.884,P=0.000]。2组出血量、体温恢复时间、肛门排气时间差异无显著性（P〉0.05）。结论腹腔镜下子宫次全切除术中行双侧子宫动脉双极电凝、剪刀切断的方法安全、有效,明显缩短手术时间。

Comparison between Two Uterine Artery Approaches in Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

Objective To compare the efficacy of two uterine artery approaches in subtotal laparoscopic hysterectomy. Methods From May 2010 to May 2011, we performed subtotal laparoscopic hysterectomy on totally 124 patients. The patients were divided into experimental and control groups. In the experimental group （ n = 63） , we used bipolar coagulation to cut the uterine artery, while in the control group （n = 60） , simple ligation of the bilateral uterine arteries were employed. The operation time, blood loss, body temperature recovery time, recovery time of gastrointestinal function, hospital stay, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results Compared to the control group, the experimental group showed significantly shorter operation time and hospital stay （78.2±14.3） rain vs. （87.5 ±11.7） min, t = -3.956, P=0.000 and （4. 1 ±0.9）d vs. （4.8 ± 1. 1 ）d, t = -3. 884, P = 0. 000 ]. No significant difference was detected between the two groups in the blood loss, body temperature recovery time, and recovery time of gastrointestinal function （P 〉 0. 05 ）. Conclusion Subtotal laparoscopic hysterectomy with bipolar coagulation for cutting the bilateral uterine arteries is effective, safe, and time-saving.