Clinical Comparative Study of Two Different Surgical Methods in Treatment of Cervical Incompetence at Non Pregnant Condition / 实用妇产科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To compare the effect of laparoscopic uterine isthmus cerclage and transvaginal uterine isthmus cerclage in the treatment of cervical incompetence at non pregnant condition.Methods:A total of 63 patients with cervical incompetence from May 2013 to May 2015 in our hospital were enrolled in the retrospective analysis,all the enrolled patients had naturally conceived single birth with complete data after laparoscopic uterine isthmus cerclage or transvaginal uterine isthmus cerclage and were divided into two groups according to two different surgical methods for uterine isthmus cerclage to compare the clinical effect.30 patients treated with laparoscopic uterine isthmus cerclage were,in the research group and the other 33 patients treated with transvaginal uterine isthmus cerclage were in the control group.Results:The treatment success rate of research group (96.67％) was significantly higher than that of the control group(51.52％) (P ＜ 0.05).The research group had got a longer average pregnancy period than control group (P ＜ 0.05).Postoperative abortion rate (3.33％) and preterm birth rate(10.00％) of research group were obviously lower than the control group (48.48％,30.30％)(P＜0.05).The term infant rate of research group (86.67％) was higher than control group (21.21％) (P ＜0.05).The operation time((37.27 ± 1.93 min) and hospital stay(5.17 ±0.38 d) of the research group were less than the control group(P＜0.05).The bleeding amount in surgery of research group(13.13 ±1.57ml) was significantly lower than the control group(31.61 ± 1.87 ml) (P ＜ 0.05).The complication rate of observation group was 0,and the control group was 18.18％.The difference was significant(P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions:Laparoscopic uterine isthmus cerclage in treatment of cervical imcompetence at non pregnant condition has better clinical effect than transvaginal uterine isthmus cerclage.It has higher security and feasibility.It is worth clinically promoting.