[1]刘增婷,潘珂,曹莉莉,等.经阴道改良盆底功能重建术中切除子宫与保留子宫的疗效比较[J].第三军医大学学报,2016,38(11):1309-1312.
 Liu Zengting,Pan Ke,Cao Lili,et al.Comparison of uterus conservation versus hysterectomy in transvaginal modified pelvic floor reconstruction[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2016,38(11):1309-1312.
点击复制

经阴道改良盆底功能重建术中切除子宫与保留子宫的疗效比较(/HTML )
分享到:

《第三军医大学学报》[ISSN:1000-5404/CN:51-1095/R]

卷:
38卷
期数:
2016年第11期
页码:
1309-1312
栏目:
临床医学
出版日期:
2016-06-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of uterus conservation versus hysterectomy in transvaginal modified pelvic floor reconstruction
作者:
刘增婷潘珂曹莉莉王延洲雷玲徐惠成
第三军医大学西南医院妇产科
Author(s):
Liu Zengting Pan Ke Cao Lili Wang Yanzhou Lei Ling Xu Huicheng

Department of Gynecology and Obsterics, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400038, China

关键词:
盆底器官脱垂改良盆底功能重建术保留子宫子宫切除术
Keywords:
pelvic organ prolapsed transvaginal modified pelvic floor reconstruction uterus conservation hysterectomy
分类号:
R713.42
文献标志码:
A
摘要:

目的      比较经阴道改良盆底重建术中切除子宫与保留子宫的临床疗效及对患者生活质量的影响。      方法      收集2009-2013年在我院接受经阴道改良盆底重建术的患者临床资料,切除子宫组(concomitant hysterectomy group,CH)71例,保留子宫组(uterus conservation group,UC)53例。比较手术时间等围手术期参数;采用盆腔器官脱垂分度(POP-Q)评估患者术前的脱垂情况及术后的手术效果;以盆底疾病生活质量影响问卷(pelvic floor impact questionnaire-short form 7,PFIQ-7)、盆底功能障碍疾病相关问卷(pelvic floor distress inventory short form 20,PFDI-20)评价手术对患者生活质量的影响。      结果      两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、手术费用比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者术后的POP-Q值及POP-Q分期均较术前有明显改善;两组术后PFIQ-7和PFDI-20评分均较术前有显著降低(P<0.05),但两组术后以上参数比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后患者有性生活的UC组9例和CH组8例;两组术后PISQ-12评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。      结论      经阴道改良盆底功能重建术中选择保留子宫不影响手术疗效。

Abstract:

Objective      To evaluate and compare the clinical effects and quality-of-life outcomes of transvaginal modified floor reconstruction in combination with uterus conservation or hysterectomy in patients without a prior history of urogenital surgery.       Methods      Medical records of 124 patients, who underwent modified reconstructive pelvic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) during January 2009 to December 2013, were reviewed retrospectively, and the patients were divided into concomitant hysterectomy group (CH group, n=71) and uterus conservation group (UC group). The preoperative and postoperative effects were evaluated using objective POP quantification (POP-Q), and the perioperative parameters such as operation time were compared. The therapeutic effect and impact on quality-of-life were analyzed through scores of pelvic floor impact questionnaire-short form 7 (PFIQ-7), pelvic floor distress inventory short form 20 (PFID-20) and pelvic organ prolapsed-urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ).       Results      The average operation time, blood lost amount in operation and surgical cost had statistically significant differences between the CH group and the UC group (P<0.05). All the POP-Q parameters and stages were significantly improved (P<0.05) in both groups after surgery. The scores of PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 questionnaires were lower (P<0.05) after surgery, but the difference of the postoperative parameters between the UC group and the CH group was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Nine patients in the UC group and eight patients in the CH group had the sexual life after surgery, but the difference of questionnaire of PISQ-12 was not statistically significant.       Conclusion      Uterus conservation in modified pelvic floor reconstruction has become a valid option.

参考文献/References:

[1]Huang L Y, Chu L C, Chiang H J, et al. Medium-term comparison of uterus preservation versus hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse treatment with ProliftTM mesh[J]. Int Urogynecol J, 2015, 26(7): 1013-1020. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2630-z
[2]Ridgeway B, Frick A C, Walter M D. Hysteropexy. A review[J]. Minerva Ginecol, 2008, 60(6): 509-528.
[3]Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, et al. Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (ProliftTM technique)—a case series multicentric study[J]. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2007, 18(7): 743-752. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-006-0234-3
[4]Maher C F, Feiner B, DeCuyper E M, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 204(4): 360.e1-360.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016
[5]朱兰, 郎景和, 任常, 等. 改良全盆底重建术[J]. 中华妇产科杂志, 2007, 42(9): 634-635. DOI: 10.3760/j.issn: 0529-567x.2007.09.016
[6]Bump R C, Mattiasson A , Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1996, 175(1): 10-17.
[7]Weber A M, Abrams P, Brubaker L, et al. The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders[J]. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2001, 12(3): 178-186.
[8]Long C Y, Hsu C S, Wu C H, et al. Three-year outcome of transvaginal mesh repair for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2012, 161(1): 105-108. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.12.007
[9]DeLancey J O. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1992, 166(6 Pt 1): 1717-1724.
[10]Margulies R U, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Fenner D E, et al. Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 199(6): 678.e1-678.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog. 2008.07.049
[11]仲丹, 翟永宁, 张蕾, 等. 全盆底重建术与传统阴式修补术治疗重度盆腔器官脱垂的疗效比较[J]. 中国妇产科临床杂志, 2013, 14(2): 110-114. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1861.2013.02.005
[12]McDermott C D, Terry C L, Woodman P J, et al. Surgical outcomes following total Prolift: colpopexy versus hysteropexy[J]. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 2011, 51(1): 61-66. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01258.x
[13]Chu L C, Chuang F C, Kung F T, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes following pelvic reconstruction with Perigee and Apogee systems: hysterectomy or not?[J]. Int Urogynecol J, 2012, 23(1): 79-84. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1513-1
[14]Huang K H, Chuang F C, Fu H C, et al. Polypropylene mesh as an alternative option for uterine preservation in pelvic reconstruction in patients with uterine prolapse[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2012, 38(1): 97-101. DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01647.x
[15]Lo T S, Pue L B, Hung T H, et al. Long-term outcome of native tissue reconstructive vaginal surgery for advanced pelvic organ prolapse at 86 months: Hysterectomy versus hysteropexy[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2015, 41(7): 1099-1107. DOI: 10.1111/jog.12678
[16]Fatton B, Wagner L, Delmas V, et al. The role of hysterectomy during the repair of prolapse by promonotofixation[J]. Prog Urol, 2009, 19(13): 1006-1013. DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2009.09.012
[17]Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine-preserving POP surgery[J]. Int Urogynecol J, 2013, 24(11): 1803-1813. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2171-2
 

更新日期/Last Update: 2016-05-29