论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨腹腔镜在盆腔炎诊断和治疗中的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析了2009～2011年180例盆腔炎患者的临床资料,对照组采用常规的抗生素进行治疗,观察组采用腹腔镜手术进行治疗,对两组患者治疗的临床疗效、平均住院天数、症状好转时间、包裹性肿块消退率、白细胞降低时间、病后参加工作时间、疼痛率、包块数目、并发症率、再次手术率、随访情况、急诊手术与非急诊手术以及患者治疗后的生存质量进行比较。结果:观察组患者治疗的总有效率达到100.0%,远高于对照组;观察组患者平均住院天数、症状好转时间、包裹性肿块小消退率、白细胞降低时间、病后参加工作时间分别为(7.82±1.79)天、(5.78±0.93)天、100.0%、(2.78±1.23)天及(16.87±3.22)天,对照组患者分别为(18.92±6.77)天、(5.91±3.22)天、5.0%、(4.11±3.58)天、(22.18±8.76)天,除了症状好转及白细胞降低的时间不存在统计学差异外,两组患者的其他各个指标均具有统计学差异(P<0.01)。观察组疼痛率、包块数目、并发症率、再次手术率分别为6.7%、3.3%、8.9%以及0%,而对照组分别为80.0%、33.3%、44.4%、10.0%。急诊与非急诊手术在手术时间、输血量、术后体温正常天数等方面不存在统计学差异(P>0.05),但急诊与非急诊手术在住院天数方面存在统计学差异(P<0.01);对照组患者生存质量总得分要明显低于观察组(P<0.01)。结论:腹腔镜用于治疗盆腔炎,方法安全有效,患者创伤小,治疗效果显著,住院时间明显缩短、随访情况以及治疗后生存质量等方面有所提高,应在临床上加以推广应用。
Objective: To investigate the clinical effect of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease. Methods: The clinical data of 180 patients with pelvic inflammatory disease from 2009 to 2011 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients in the control group were treated with conventional antibiotics. The patients in the observation group were treated with laparoscopic surgery. The clinical efficacy, average days of hospitalization, Symptom improvement time, encapsulated lump regress rate, leukopenia time, postoperative work time, pain rate, number of mass, complication rate, rate of reoperation, follow-up, emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery, and survival after treatment Quality comparison. Results: The total effective rate of observation group was 100.0%, which was much higher than that of control group. The average hospitalization days, symptom improvement time, the small regression rate of encapsulated mass, the leukopenia time and the working hours after the illness in the observation group were ( 7.82 ± 1.79) days, (5.78 ± 0.93) days, 100.0%, (2.78 ± 1.23) days and (16.87 ± 3.22) days respectively. The patients in the control group were (18.92 ± 6.77) days, 5.91 ± 3.22 days %, (4.11 ± 3.58) days and (22.18 ± 8.76) days respectively. There were significant differences between the two groups (P <0.01) except for the improvement of symptoms and the leukopenia time. The pain rate, the number of mass, the complication rate and the rate of reoperation in the observation group were 6.7%, 3.3%, 8.9% and 0%, respectively, while those in the control group were 80.0%, 33.3%, 44.4% and 10.0% respectively. There was no significant difference in emergency operation and non - emergency operation between operation time, blood transfusion and postoperative normal body temperature (P> 0.05), but there was a significant difference in the days of hospitalization between emergency and non - emergency operation (P <0.01). The total quality of life of patients in the control group was significantly lower than that of the observation group (P <0.01). Conclusions: Laparoscopy is effective in treating pelvic inflammatory disease, the method is safe and effective, the trauma of the patient is small, the curative effect is significant, the length of hospital stay is shortened, the follow-up situation and the quality of life after treatment are improved. So it should be popularized and applied clinically.