• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[子宫切除术的比较分析]

[A comparative analysis of hysterectomies].

作者信息

Aniuliene Rosita, Varzgaliene Laima, Varzgalis Manvydas

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaunas University of Medicine, Kaunas, Lithuania.

出版信息

Medicina (Kaunas). 2007;43(2):118-24.

PMID:17329946
Abstract

UNLABELLED

The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare operative and postoperative results and differences among laparoscopic, vaginal, and abdominal hysterectomies performed at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical histories was performed for women who had undergone three different types of hysterectomies (laparoscopic, vaginal, and abdominal) at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital during 2004-2005.

RESULTS

A total of 602 hysterectomies were performed: 51 (8.5%) laparoscopic, 203 (33.7%) vaginal, and 348 (57.8%) abdominal. The lowest complication rate occurred in patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy (n=5, 9.8%) and the highest--abdominal hysterectomy (n=88, 25.2%) (P<0.05). More complication occurred after abdominal as compared to vaginal hysterectomy (n=88, 25.2% vs. n=20, 9.9%, respectively; P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rate comparing laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomies (P=0.26). The amount of blood loss depended on the type of hysterectomy--less blood was lost during laparoscopic and more during abdominal hysterectomy (123.4 vs. 308.5 mL, respectively; P<0.01). A significantly higher blood loss was observed during abdominal hysterectomy as compared to vaginal (195.3 mL) and vaginal as compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (P<0.01). The mean length of hospital stay differed comparing all three types of hysterectomies: the shortest stay of 8.6 days was after laparoscopic, the longest of 13.7 days--after abdominal hysterectomy. The mean hospital stay was statistically significant shorter for vaginal hysterectomy compared to abdominal hysterectomy (9.1 vs. 13.7 days, P<0.01). The difference in mean length of hospital stay was insignificant comparing laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomies (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal hysterectomy was the most common procedure performed. The type of hysterectomy influenced the rate of complications--the lowest complication rate was after laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomies. The amount of blood loss depended on the type of hysterectomy--the lowest was during laparoscopic hysterectomy. Abdominal hysterectomy required on average a longer hospital stay compared with laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomies.

摘要

未标注

本研究的目的是评估和比较在考纳斯医科大学医院妇产科进行的腹腔镜子宫切除术、阴道子宫切除术和腹部子宫切除术的手术及术后结果和差异。

方法

对2004年至2005年期间在考纳斯医科大学医院妇产科接受三种不同类型子宫切除术(腹腔镜、阴道和腹部)的女性患者的病历进行回顾性研究。

结果

共进行了602例子宫切除术:51例(8.5%)腹腔镜手术、203例(33.7%)阴道手术和348例(57.8%)腹部手术。接受腹腔镜子宫切除术的患者并发症发生率最低(n = 5,9.8%),腹部子宫切除术患者并发症发生率最高(n = 88,25.2%)(P < 0.05)。与阴道子宫切除术相比,腹部子宫切除术后并发症更多(分别为n = 88,25.2%和n = 20,9.9%;P < 0.05)。腹腔镜子宫切除术和阴道子宫切除术的并发症发生率无统计学显著差异(P = 0.26)。失血量取决于子宫切除术的类型——腹腔镜手术中失血量较少,腹部手术中失血量较多(分别为123.4 mL和308.5 mL;P < 0.01)。与阴道子宫切除术(195.3 mL)相比,腹部子宫切除术中观察到的失血量显著更高,与腹腔镜子宫切除术相比,阴道手术中的失血量也更高(P < 0.01)。比较所有三种类型的子宫切除术,平均住院时间不同:腹腔镜手术后住院时间最短,为8.6天,腹部子宫切除术后最长,为13.7天。与腹部子宫切除术相比,阴道子宫切除术的平均住院时间在统计学上显著更短(9.1天对13.7天,P < 0.01)。腹腔镜子宫切除术和阴道子宫切除术的平均住院时间差异不显著(P > 0.05)。

结论

腹部子宫切除术是最常见的手术方式。子宫切除术的类型影响并发症发生率——腹腔镜和阴道子宫切除术后并发症发生率最低。失血量取决于子宫切除术的类型——腹腔镜子宫切除术中失血量最少。与腹腔镜和阴道子宫切除术相比,腹部子宫切除术平均需要更长的住院时间。

相似文献

1
[A comparative analysis of hysterectomies].[子宫切除术的比较分析]
Medicina (Kaunas). 2007;43(2):118-24.
2
Comparison of total laparoscopic, vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy.全腹腔镜子宫切除术、经阴道子宫切除术及经腹子宫切除术的比较。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008 Apr;277(4):331-7. doi: 10.1007/s00404-007-0481-7. Epub 2007 Oct 16.
3
[Hysterectomies in patients with no history of vaginal delivery. A study of 243 cases].[无阴道分娩史患者的子宫切除术。243例病例研究]
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005 Jan-Feb;33(1-2):11-6. doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2004.11.007. Epub 2004 Dec 28.
4
[Surgical treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse at the Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital of Kaunas University of Medicine].
Medicina (Kaunas). 2009;45(6):440-6.
5
Changing hysterectomy patterns after introduction of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy.腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术后子宫切除模式的变化
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Aug;171(2):340-3; discussion 343-4. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70032-x.
6
Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted hysterectomies with conventional hysterectomies.腹腔镜辅助子宫切除术与传统子宫切除术的比较。
Saudi Med J. 2009 Jun;30(6):813-6.
7
Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy in a university hospital. Decreasing the need for abdominal hysterectomy and increasing resident experience in vaginal surgery.大学医院中的腹腔镜辅助阴道子宫切除术。减少腹部子宫切除术的需求并增加住院医师在阴道手术方面的经验。
J Reprod Med. 1996 Jul;41(7):497-503.
8
Comparison of abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic hysterectomies in a tertiary care hospital in Turkey.土耳其一家三级护理医院中腹部、阴道和腹腔镜子宫切除术的比较。
Ir J Med Sci. 2018 May;187(2):485-491. doi: 10.1007/s11845-017-1660-6. Epub 2017 Jul 19.
9
Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal versus radical abdominal hysterectomy type II in patients with cervical cancer.腹腔镜辅助下根治性阴道切除术与Ⅱ型根治性腹式子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌的比较
Surg Endosc. 2001 Mar;15(3):289-92. doi: 10.1007/s004640000306. Epub 2000 Dec 12.
10
Laparoscopy vs. laparotomy for gynecologic procedures. Impact on resident training.妇科手术中腹腔镜检查与剖腹手术对比:对住院医师培训的影响
J Reprod Med. 1996 Apr;41(4):225-30.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparative Analysis of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Versus Non-descent Vaginal Hysterectomy for Benign Uterine Pathologies in Women: A Systematic Review.全腹腔镜子宫切除术与非脱垂阴道子宫切除术治疗女性良性子宫疾病的比较分析:一项系统评价
Cureus. 2024 Jun 21;16(6):e62846. doi: 10.7759/cureus.62846. eCollection 2024 Jun.
2
Cavaterm treatment in high - risk surgical patients.高危手术患者的Cavaterm治疗。
Caspian J Intern Med. 2021 Apr;12(3):336-341. doi: 10.22088/cjim.12.3.336.
3
A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of Vaginal, Abdominal, and Laparoscopic Hysterectomies.
阴道、腹部及腹腔镜子宫切除术的前瞻性随机对照研究
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2016 Oct;66(Suppl 1):389-94. doi: 10.1007/s13224-015-0756-z. Epub 2015 Sep 1.