论文部分内容阅读
目的对比LEEP刀与微波治疗治疗低级别CIN病变伴宫颈糜烂患者的临床疗效、安全性。方法从2014年2月开始筛选患者,以门诊收治的CIN I-II伴宫颈糜烂患者作为研究对象,截止2016年5月,入选对象140例,采用随机数字表达法分组,LEEP组、微波组各入组70例,分别采用LEEP刀、微波治疗,对比疗效与并发症。结果微波组痊愈率84.3%低于LEEP组94.3%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);微波组出血量高于LEEP组,微波组阴道流血时间、并发症发生率低于对照组LEEP组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 LEEP刀与微波治疗在宫颈糜烂治疗各有优劣,LEEP刀痊愈率更高,但可能存在并发症,对疗效期望较高、CIN II级或严重宫颈糜烂、CIN进展为高级别病变风险较高的患者,才可考虑LEEP治疗,避免过度治疗。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of LEEP knife and microwave in the treatment of patients with low grade CIN and cervical erosion. METHODS: From February 2014, patients were screened and outpatients were enrolled as CIN I-II patients with cervical erosion. As of May 2016, 140 patients were enrolled and divided into groups according to random number expression. LEEP group and microwave group Into the group of 70 cases, respectively, using LEEP knife, microwave treatment, the efficacy and complications. Results The cure rate of microwave group was 84.3% lower than that of LEEP group (94.3%), the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05); the blood loss of microwave group was higher than that of LEEP group and microwave group, the complication rate was lower than that of LEEP group , The difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion LEEP knife and microwave treatment in the treatment of cervical erosion have their own advantages and disadvantages, LEEP knife cure rate higher, but there may be complications, high efficacy expectations, CIN II or severe cervical erosion, CIN progression to high-grade lesions risk High patients, can consider LEEP treatment, to avoid over-treatment.