Lundorff P, Thorburn J, Hahlin M, Källfelt B, Lindblom B
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Göteborg, Viborg Hospital, Sweden.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1991;70(4-5):343-8. doi: 10.3109/00016349109007885.
A randomized, prospective clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic treatment with conventional conservative abdominal surgery for tubal pregnancy. Entry criteria were: size of the ectopic gestation less than 4 cm, hemodynamic stability, accessibility for laparoscopic treatment and a trained laparoscopist on duty. There was no difference between the groups regarding gestational duration, size and location of the ectopic gestation, or the mean preoperative hCG values. The groups differed with respect to total operation time (73 min for the laparoscopy group vs. 88 min for the laparotomy group), hospital stay (2.2 vs. 5.4 days) and convalescence period (11 vs. 24 days). The rates of elimination of hCG was similar in the groups, and there were no statistical difference in the rate of second intervention.
进行了一项随机前瞻性临床试验，以比较腹腔镜治疗与传统保守性腹部手术治疗输卵管妊娠的疗效。纳入标准为：异位妊娠大小小于4厘米、血流动力学稳定、可进行腹腔镜治疗且有训练有素的腹腔镜医师值班。两组在妊娠持续时间、异位妊娠的大小和位置或术前平均hCG值方面无差异。两组在总手术时间（腹腔镜组73分钟，剖腹手术组88分钟）、住院时间（2.2天对5.4天）和恢复期（11天对24天）方面存在差异。两组hCG清除率相似，二次干预率无统计学差异。
