Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2012
[Effect of cervical conization through hysteroscopy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Mubiao, Hou Guiyu, He Yuanli, Peng Dongxian, Wang Xuefeng, Chen Wei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the therapeutic effect of cervical conization through hysteroscopy in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III.
METHODS: Seventy-four patients with CIN III underwent cervical conization through hysteroscopy (TCRC group), and 65 received cold knife conization (CKC group). The operating time, volume of blood loss, concordance rate with pathology, recurrence rate, rate of cervix adhesion and pregnancy rate were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The operating time, mean blood loss, cure rate, and recurrence rate were 15.1∓3.2 min, 12.5∓1.8 ml, 94.6%, and 5.4% in TCRC group, respectively, as compared with those of 25.8∓3.8 min, 21.6∓2.4 ml, 81.5%, and 18.5% in CKC group, all showing significant differences between the two groups (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Compared with CKC, TCRC has such advantages as less blood loss, shorter operating time, more accurate lesion localization, fewer complications, higher cure rate, and lower recurrence rate without significant adverse effect on pregnancy.
METHODS: Seventy-four patients with CIN III underwent cervical conization through hysteroscopy (TCRC group), and 65 received cold knife conization (CKC group). The operating time, volume of blood loss, concordance rate with pathology, recurrence rate, rate of cervix adhesion and pregnancy rate were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The operating time, mean blood loss, cure rate, and recurrence rate were 15.1∓3.2 min, 12.5∓1.8 ml, 94.6%, and 5.4% in TCRC group, respectively, as compared with those of 25.8∓3.8 min, 21.6∓2.4 ml, 81.5%, and 18.5% in CKC group, all showing significant differences between the two groups (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Compared with CKC, TCRC has such advantages as less blood loss, shorter operating time, more accurate lesion localization, fewer complications, higher cure rate, and lower recurrence rate without significant adverse effect on pregnancy.