4.4 Article

Efficacy of laparoscopic adenomyomectomy using double-flap method for diffuse uterine adenomyosis

期刊

BMC WOMENS HEALTH
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-015-0182-5

关键词

Adenomyosis; Adenomyomectomy; Dysmenorrhea; Double flap method; Surgery

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [81270672, 81471433]
  2. Nature Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [Y2110181, Y2110128]
  3. Science and Technology Fund of Zhejiang Province [2011C13028-1, 2013C33149]
  4. Key Medical Science (Innovation) Project of Zhejiang Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Adenomyomectomy has recently been considered the priority option for the treatment of adenomyosis, however, the surgical efficacy and modes are still debated. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic adenomyomectomy using a double-flap method for the treatment of uterine diffuse adenomyosis when compared with conventional laparoscopic adenomyomectomy. Methods: Laparoscopic adenomyomectomy using the conventional method (group A, n = 48) and the double-flap method (group B, n = 46) to treat diffuse uterine adenomyosis, respectively. Visual analog scale (VAS), menstrual amount, serum CA125 levels, and uterine volume were comparatively analyzed in both groups. Results: The VAS scores, menstrual amount, serum CA125 levels, and uterine volume at 12 or 24 months after surgery significantly reduced in group B than in group A (P < 0.05); these parameters were statistically decreased in both groups after surgery compared with those obtained before surgery (P < 0.001). Moreover, serum CA125 levels and uterine volume at six months of follow up were significantly lower in group B than in group A (P < 0.01). In addition, blood loss during surgery was similar in groups A and B (P > 0.05), although the operative time was significantly longer in group B than that in group A (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Laparoscopic adenomyomectomy using the double-flap method may be an effective technique to treat uterine diffuse adenomyosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据