宮頸錐切術對患者生育能力及妊娠結(jié)局的影響
[Abstract]:Objective To investigate the effect of cervical conization on fertility and pregnancy outcome. Methods 86 patients with cervical lesions who underwent conization in our hospital from January 1, 2008 to May 31, 2013 were followed up. Forty-five patients without primary infertility and with fertility requirements were selected as cervical conization. Group A: 50 women without history of cervical conization and with fertility requirements were randomly selected from gynecology and obstetrics clinics at the same time as control group. Currently, there are mainly two methods of cervical conization: loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and cold knife conization (CKC). Relevant case data and telephone follow-up of patients in our hospital and those who did not give birth in our hospital: including the general situation of the two groups of patients, age, height, weight, pregnancy history, childbirth history, adverse pregnancy and childbirth history, the size of the cone after cervical conization, the length of conization to pregnancy, whether pregnancy due to fetal care and hospitalization, pregnancy period is The results of cervical cerclage, pregnancy outcomes (abortion, premature delivery, full-term delivery, premature rupture of membranes) and termination of pregnancy (cesarean section, vaginal delivery) 1. The general situation of patients compared with cervical conization group and control group of patients in general, the difference was not statistically significant (P 0.05). 2. Pregnancy compared with cervical conization group of 45 patients, There were 41 pregnancies in 40 patients (88.8% (40/45); 47 pregnancies in 46 patients in the control group (92.0% (46/50). There was no significant difference in pregnancy rate between the two groups (P 0.05). 3. Pregnancy outcomes (1) Premature labor, premature rupture of membranes, abortion in 36 patients in the cervical conization group (8.3%); Premature rupture of membranes in cervical conization group was 8.3% (3/36), and that in control group was 2.3% (1/42). 6) The incidence of abortion, premature delivery and premature rupture of membranes in the conization group were higher than those in the control group, but there was no significant difference (P 0.05). (2) The relationship between the height of conization and pregnancy outcome and cervical cerclage. 40 pregnant women in the conization group were divided into three groups according to the height of 10 mm, 10-20 mm, > 10 mm. The incidence of premature rupture and the rate of cesarean section increased with the height of cervical conization, but there was no significant difference between the three groups (p0.05). Cervical cerclage was performed in 2 of 36 patients who had given birth. The height of cervical conization was 20 mm in both of the 36 patients. The height of cervical conization was 30 mm in one of them. (3) The shortest interval between conization and pregnancy was 4 months and the longest was 48 months. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the interval between conization and pregnancy: 6 months, 6-12 months. The rates of abortion, premature delivery, premature rupture of membranes and cesarean section were compared between the three groups. The incidence of premature delivery in the group with the interval between conization and pregnancy less than 6 months was significantly higher than that in the group with 12 months (P = 0.014). There was no significant difference between the rate of cervical conization and the rate of cesarean section (P 0.05) (4) The relationship between conization and hospitalization for fetal preservation was not significant (P 0.05). The other 12 patients had no indication of fetal preservation, but they had to be hospitalized for fear of cervical tube shortening, one of them had to be hospitalized twice. Compared with the control group, the birth weight of newborns in the conization group was lower than that in the control group (P = 0.027). 5. Comparison of termination methods of pregnancy (1) Of the 41 pregnancies in the conization group, 36 had given birth, 22 had elective cesarean section and 14 had a vaginal trial. The cesarean section rate was 72.7% (26/36), and 16 patients with psychosocial factors as the indication of cesarean section were removed. The number of cesarean section was 10, and the cesarean section rate was 27.7% (10/36); 46 patients in the control group had 47 pregnancies, 42 had given birth, 16 had elective cesarean section, and 26.7% (10/36). The cesarean section rate was 47.6% (20/42). 9 patients were required to undergo cesarean section because of social and psychological factors. The cesarean section rate was 26.1% (11/42). The cesarean section rate in the conization group was higher than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.028). (2) The cesarean section rate was basically the same between the two groups. (2) Comparing the cesarean section indications between the two groups, the cervical conization group had 40 cases. 16 pregnant women with cesarean section indications for social and psychological factors accounted for 40.0% (16/40); the control group of 46 pregnant women with cesarean section indications for social and psychological factors accounted for 9 cases, the proportion was 19.6% (9/46). Cervical conization group of social and psychological factors of surgical indications were significantly higher than the control group, the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.037). Conclusion 1. Conization of cervix has no significant effect on the pregnant ability of patients with cervical lesions. 2. Conization of cervix has no significant effect on the incidence of abortion, premature delivery and premature rupture of membranes. The cervical conization height (> 20 mm) is an important reason for cervical cerclage. 4. The premature delivery rate of patients whose interval between conization and pregnancy is shorter than 6 months is significantly higher than that of patients whose interval between pregnancy is longer than 12 months. 5. The cervical conization increases the hospitalization rate of pregnancy. 6. Cervical conization does not lead to neonatal mortality. Cervical conization did not significantly affect the success rate of vaginal delivery, but significantly increased the rate of cesarean section, mainly increased the social and psychological factors of cesarean section indications, did not increase other aspects of cesarean section indications.
【學位授予單位】:山東大學
【學位級別】:碩士
【學位授予年份】:2016
【分類號】:R714.2
【相似文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 石少權;郝麗娟;姜芳芳;洪婷;莊圓;王桂榮;王峰;;改良宮頸錐切術臨床效果研究[J];中國實用婦科與產(chǎn)科雜志;2013年01期
2 馮梅;李秀華;;宮頸錐切術29例臨床分析[J];福建醫(yī)藥雜志;2006年05期
3 王冬軍;趙玉芳;;118例宮頸錐切術后病人的護理[J];護理研究;2008年32期
4 陳兢思;陳敦金;;宮頸錐切術對生育的影響[J];實用婦產(chǎn)科雜志;2009年07期
5 嚴沁;萬小平;;宮頸錐切術的指征[J];實用婦產(chǎn)科雜志;2009年07期
6 周慧梅;朱蘭;;診斷性與治療性宮頸錐切術的臨床價值[J];實用婦產(chǎn)科雜志;2009年07期
7 袁德利;;宮頸錐切術后大出血16例臨床分析[J];中國當代醫(yī)藥;2009年20期
8 王丹;宋薇薇;;宮頸錐切術及根治性宮頸切除術后妊娠相關問題[J];中國實用婦科與產(chǎn)科雜志;2010年04期
9 劉國艷;薛鳳霞;;宮頸錐切術對妊娠及分娩方式的影響[J];中國實用婦科與產(chǎn)科雜志;2010年04期
10 王淑霞;;宮頸錐切術聯(lián)合沙棘籽油栓治療宮頸上皮內(nèi)病變45例療效觀察[J];河南外科學雜志;2010年02期
相關會議論文 前4條
1 ?←;王愛云;;宮頸錐切術前術后護理41例[A];河南省腫瘤全科護理學術交流會議資料匯編[C];2005年
2 辛虹;;宮頸錐切術對妊娠及分娩的影響[A];第五屆環(huán)渤海圍產(chǎn)醫(yī)學學術會議暨山東省第四次圍產(chǎn)醫(yī)學學術會議論文匯編[C];2012年
3 馬永靜;熊英;;宮頸上皮內(nèi)瘤樣病變Ⅲ級行宮頸錐切術的臨床價值[A];2011首屆寧夏生殖醫(yī)學學術年會資料匯編[C];2011年
4 盧紅鮮;陳亞俠;萬小云;呂衛(wèi)國;謝幸;;CINⅢ宮頸錐切術切緣陽性因素及處理[A];第四屆長三角婦產(chǎn)科學術論壇暨浙江省2009年婦產(chǎn)科學術年會論文匯編[C];2009年
相關碩士學位論文 前10條
1 翟軍迎;宮頸錐切術對患者生育能力及妊娠結(jié)局的影響[D];山東大學;2016年
2 林青;22例宮頸錐切術后預防性腹腔鏡宮頸環(huán)扎的臨床分析[D];山東大學;2016年
3 李玲玲;宮頸錐切術770例的臨床分析[D];吉林大學;2011年
4 王s,
本文編號:2198488
本文鏈接:http://sikaile.net/yixuelunwen/fuchankeerkelunwen/2198488.html