本文選題：盆底功能障礙 + 盆底重建�。� 參考：《河北醫(yī)藥》2016年02期

【摘要】：目的探討盆底重建聯(lián)合盆底康復(fù)治療儀在女性盆底功能障礙性疾病中的臨床應(yīng)用價值。方法 125例盆底功能障礙性疾病患者隨機(jī)分為對照組(n=62)和治療組(n=63)。對照組采用腹腔鏡下高位骶韌帶懸吊術(shù),治療組:采用盆底重建手術(shù),使用Gynecare Prolift骨盆底修復(fù)系統(tǒng)。2組患者手術(shù)1個月后,采用盆底康復(fù)治療儀Phenix USB4進(jìn)行治療。觀察2組患者手術(shù)時間、術(shù)中出血量、排氣時間和尿管留置時間、分度指示點(diǎn)測量和肌電活動、肌力情況,并對患者進(jìn)行隨訪6個月,觀察2組患者盆底功能障礙問卷評分(PFDI-20)和復(fù)發(fā)情況。結(jié)果治療組患者手術(shù)時間、出血量、排氣時間和尿管留置時間與對照組比較,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。2組治療后肌電水平與治療前比較顯著提高(P0.05),治療組治療后肌電水平高于對照組,但差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。治療組治療后分度指示點(diǎn)與對照組比較,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。2組治療后肌力均優(yōu)于治療前(P0.05)。2組治療后PFDI-20評分與治療前比較顯著降低,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05),治療組治療后PFDI-20評分和復(fù)發(fā)率低于對照組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。結(jié)論盆底重建對Ⅲ、Ⅳ度脫垂患者有良好的治療效果,可以縮短手術(shù)時間、減少術(shù)中出血量,患者恢復(fù)時間短,復(fù)發(fā)率低,聯(lián)合盆底康復(fù)治療儀有助于患者術(shù)后盆底組織肌力恢復(fù)。
[Abstract]:Objective to evaluate the clinical value of pelvic floor reconstruction combined with pelvic floor rehabilitation therapy in female patients with pelvic floor dysfunction. Methods 125 patients with pelvic floor dysfunction were randomly divided into control group (n = 62) and treatment group (n = 63). The control group was treated with laparoscopic high sacral ligament suspension, and the treatment group was treated with pelvic floor reconstruction, Gynecare Prolift pelvic floor repair system and Phenix USB4. The operative time, blood loss, exhaust time and indwelling time of urinary catheter were observed in two groups. The measurement of index points, myoelectric activity and muscle strength were observed. The patients were followed up for 6 months. The pelvic floor dysfunction scale (PFDI-20) and recurrence were observed. Results the operative time, bleeding volume, exhaust time and urinary catheter retention time in the treatment group were compared with those in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P0.05). 2 after treatment, the level of EMG in the treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P0.05), but the difference was not statistically significant (P0.05). Compared with the control group, there was a significant difference between the treatment group and the control group (P0.05). 2. The muscle strength of the treatment group was significantly higher than that of the pre-treatment group (P0.05). The PFDI-20 score of the treatment group was significantly lower than that of the pre-treatment group. The difference was statistically significant (P0.05). The PFDI-20 score and recurrence rate in the treatment group were lower than those in the control group (P0.05). Conclusion pelvic floor reconstruction has a good therapeutic effect on patients with grade 鈪，

本文編號：2099255