两种方式治疗剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠的临床效果

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-9400.2019.11.013

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (4)

Download: PDF (1235 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective: To analyze the clinical effect and safety of trans-vaginal and laparoscopic treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods: 76 CSP patients treated in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2018 were divided as Transvaginal Operation Group (Group A) and Laparoscopic Operation Group (Group B), with 38 cases in each group. Group A underwent transvaginal hysterectomy and Group B underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy. The operation time, bleeding volume, hospital stay, first anal exhaust time, menstrual recovery time, recovery time of serum human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG), 24-hour visual analogue score (VAS) were compared between the two groups. The occurrence of bladder injury, vaginal bleeding, infection and other complications were recorded. Results: The operation time, bleeding volume and hospitalization time were significantly less (P<0.05) in Group A than in Group B. The first anal exhaust time and 24-hour VAS of group A were less than those of group B, the difference being statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in menstrual recovery time, serum β-hCG recovery time as well as the occurrence of complications. Conclusion: Both transvaginal and laparoscopic approaches are effective and safe for CSP patients. However, transvaginal surgery has the advantages of less trauma and faster recovery.

Key words： cesarean scar pregnancy transvaginal surgery laparoscopic surgery therapeutic effect

Received: 22 January 2019

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	DU Xiumei

URL:

https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.2095-9400.2019.11.013 OR https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2019/V49/I11/850

[1] ÖZCAN H Ç, UĞUR M G, BALAT Ö, et al. Is ultrasound-guided suction curettage a reliable option for treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy? A cross-sectional retrospective study[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2018, 31(22): 2953-2958.
[2] 邓玉艳, 陆静, 宋丁. 剖宫产瘢痕部位妊娠的超声分型及治疗效果的研究[J]. 实用妇产科杂志, 2017, 33(7): 538-540.
[3] SROUSSI J, PANCHBHAYA N, BOUJLEL S, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy with deep serosal invasion at 16 weeks: Uterus-sparing surgery with posterior hysterotomy after transcatheter arterial embolization[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2018, 44(9): 1824-1827.
[4] ZHANG Y. A comparative study of transvaginal repair and laparoscopic repair in the management of patients with previous cesarean scar defect[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2016, 23(4): 535-541.
[5] ZHANG C, LIU G, GUO Q, et al. Foley catheter-assisted laparoscopic treatment of type II cesarean scar pregnancy[J].J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2016, 23(4): 639-642.
[6] 金力, 陈蔚琳, 周应芳. 剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠诊治专家共识(2016)[J]. 全科医学临床与教育, 2017, 51(1): 5-9.
[7] 郝凤梅, 苗华艳. 氯普鲁卡因注射液联合吗啡注射液硬膜外麻醉对剖宫产术后镇痛的临床研究[J]. 中国临床药理学杂志, 2017, 33(2): 112-115.
[8] ISHIDA H, TAKASHIMA A, NAGAOKA M, et al. Uterine rupture due to placenta percreta in the first trimester of a pregnancy subsequent to a transverse uterine fundal cesarean section: A case report[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2018, 44(9): 1832-1835.
[9] LIU W, SHEN L, WANG Q, et al. Uterine artery embolization combined with curettage vs. methotrexate plus curettage for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet., 2016, 294(1): 71-76.
[10] Urman B, Arslan T, Aksu S, et al. Laparoscopic repair of cesarean scar defect “Isthmocele”[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2016, 23(6): 857-858.
[11] 连成瑛, 陈秀娟, 林元, 等. 224例剖宫产术后子宫疤痕妊娠不同治疗方法的临床疗效分析[J]. 现代妇产科进展, 2016, 25(8), 603-607.
[12] 杨琳, 徐向辉, 关越交. 经阴道与经腹腔镜治疗外生型剖宫产瘢痕妊娠临床疗效探讨[J]. 当代医学, 2017, 23(4): 59-60.
[13] 陈玉阁, 黄树峰, 吴定康, 等. 经阴道和腹腔镜两种方式治疗外生型子宫切口瘢痕妊娠的临床效果[J]. 重庆医学, 2018, 47(15): 2048-2050.
[14] 刘妍, 刘宗印, 高立, 等. 两种手术方式治疗外生型剖宫产瘢痕部妊娠的临床疗效[J]. 中国计划生育和妇产科, 2017, 9(11): 51-53.
[15] 张倩倩, 申庆文. 外生型(II型)疤痕妊娠两种手术方式的疗效比较[J]. 包头医学院学报, 2018, 34(2): 19-21.