切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版)

中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (04) : 420 -424. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2021.04.007

论著

不同止血方式对腹腔镜下卵巢子宫内膜异位囊肿剥除术后卵巢储备功能的影响
王玉, 盛洁, 靳灵鸽, 蒋子文, 卢丹†()   
  • 收稿日期:2021-04-01 修回日期:2021-07-10 出版日期:2021-08-01
  • 通信作者: 卢丹

Effects of different hemostatic methods on ovarian reservation after laparoscopic ovary endometrioma cystectomy

Yu Wang, Jie Sheng, Lingge Jin, Ziwen Jiang, Dan Lu†()   

  • Received:2021-04-01 Revised:2021-07-10 Published:2021-08-01
  • Corresponding author: Dan Lu
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China(81801406)
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

王玉, 盛洁, 靳灵鸽, 蒋子文, 卢丹. 不同止血方式对腹腔镜下卵巢子宫内膜异位囊肿剥除术后卵巢储备功能的影响[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2021, 17(04): 420-424.

Yu Wang, Jie Sheng, Lingge Jin, Ziwen Jiang, Dan Lu. Effects of different hemostatic methods on ovarian reservation after laparoscopic ovary endometrioma cystectomy[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2021, 17(04): 420-424.

目的

探讨双极电凝止血和缝合止血，对腹腔镜下卵巢囊肿剥除术(LOC)后，卵巢子宫内膜异位囊肿(OEC)患者卵巢储备功能(OR)的影响。

方法

选择2014年12月至2017年8月，于北京妇产医院接受LOC的159例中、重度OEC患者为研究对象。按照术中采取的止血方式，将其分为电凝组(n＝74，采用双极电凝止血)和缝合组(n＝85，采用缝合止血)。对2组患者术前双侧卵巢囊肿直径及血清抗苗勒管激素(AMH)水平，以及术后1年双侧卵巢直径及血清AMH水平，采用Mann-Whitney U检验进行统计学比较。本研究经北京妇产医院伦理委员会批准(审批文号：2016-KY-044-01)。所有受试者知情同意并签署知情同意书。

结果

①2组OEC患者年龄、人体质量指数、修正的美国生育学会(r-AFS)评分等比较，差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。②2组OEC患者LOC术前及术后1年血清AMH水平比较，以及术前双侧卵巢囊肿直径及术后1年双侧卵巢直径比较，差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

双极电凝止血和缝合止血，对OEC患者LOC术后1年的OR影响无明显差别。

关键词: 子宫内膜异位症, 腹腔镜, 电凝术, 止血, 抗苗勒管激素, 卵巢, 卵巢囊肿, 女(雌)性
Objective

To investigate effects of bipolar coagulation and suture hemostasis on ovarian reservation (OR) of patients with ovarian endometrial cysts (OEC) after laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy (LOC).

Methods

A total of 159 patients with moderate and severe OEC who underwent LOC in Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital from December 2014 to August 2017 were selected as research subjects. According to hemostatic methods in LOC, they were divided into electrocoagulation group (n=74, stopped bleeding by bipolar electrocoagulation) and suture group (n=85, stopped bleeding by suture). Bilateral ovarian cysts diameter and serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) level before LOC, and bilateral ovarian diameter and serum AMH level 1 year after LOC were compared between two groups by Mann-Whitney U test. The Ethics Committee of Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital approved the study protocol (approval No. 2016-KY-044-01), and all the patients provided informed written consents.

Results

① There were no significant differences between two groups of OEC patients among age, body mass index and revised American Fertility Society (r-AFS) score (P>0.05). ② There were no significant differences between two groups of OEC patients in serum AMH levels before LOC and within 1 year after LOC, as well as diameter of bilateral ovarian cysts before LOC and diameter of bilateral ovary within 1 year after LOC (P>0.05).

Conclusion

There are no obvious different effects of bipolar coagulation hemostasis and suture hemostasis on OR of OEC patients within 1 year after LOC.

Key words: Endometriosis, Laparoscopes, Electrocoagulation, Hemostasis, Anti-Mullerian hormone, Ovary, Ovarian cysts, Female
图2 缝合组1例OEC患者(年龄为29岁，囊肿直径为7 cm) LOC术中，卵巢囊肿剥除后创面缝合止血过程(图2A、2B：缝合过程中卵巢创面出血多，故先采用止血纱布对创面进行压迫止血后，再缝合；图2C：止血纱布压迫后卵巢创面出血减少，继续缝合；图2D：缝合后卵巢创面未见出血)
表1 2组OEC患者一般临床资料及OR指标比较[M(P25~P75)]
组别 例数 年龄(岁) 人体质量指数(kg/m2) r-AFS评分(分) LOC术前 LOC术后1年
双侧卵巢囊肿直径(cm) 血清AMH水平(ng/mL) 双侧卵巢直径(cm) 血清AMH水平(ng/mL)
电凝组 74 31.0(28.0~35.0) 20.8(19.6~22.8) 65.5(35.5~88.3) 7(6~8) 3.0(1.8~5.6) 7.3(7.0~7.8) 1.9(0.9~3.4)
缝合组 85 30.0(27.0~35.5) 21.1(20.0~22.9) 68.0(42.0~87.5) 8(6~10) 3.1(1.9~4.7) 7.2(7.1~7.4) 2.3(1.2~4.2)
Z值   0.554 1.055 1.040 1.920 0.392 1.781 1.673
P值   0.580 0.291 0.298 0.055 0.695 0.075 0.094
图4 缝合组1例OEC患者(年龄为33岁，OEC直径为7.5 cm) LOC术后1年右侧卵巢超声检查图(白色箭头所示为卵巢)
[1]
Cosma S, Benedetto C. Classification algorithm of patients with endometriosis: proposal for tailored management[J]. Adv Clin Exp Med, 2020, 29(5): 615-622. DOI: 10.17219/acem/118849.
[2]
Alammari R, Lightfoot M, Hur HC. Impact of cystectomy on ovarian reserve: review of the literature[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2017, 24(2): 247-257. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.12.010.
[3]
Kho RM, Andres MP, Borrelli GM, et al. Surgical treatment of different types of endometriosis: comparison of major society guidelines and preferred clinical algorithms[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2018, 51: 102-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.01.020.
[4]
The effect of surgery for endometriomas on fertility: scientific impact paper No. 55[J]. BJOG, 2018, 125(6): e19-e28. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14834.
[5]
Dunselman GA, Vermeulen N, Becker C, et al. ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis[J]. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29(3): 400-412. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det457.
[6]
Ata B, Uncu G. Impact of endometriomas and their removal on ovarian reserve[J]. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2015, 27(3): 235-241. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000165.
[7]
Iwase A, Nakamura T, Osuka S, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve: what have we learned, and what should we know？[J]. Reprod Med Biol, 2016, 15(3): 127-136. DOI: 10.1007/s12522-015-0227-3.
[8]
Marcellin L, Santulli P, Bourdon M, et al. Serum antimüllerian hormone concentration increases with ovarian endometrioma size[J]. Fertil Steril, 2019, 111(5): 944-952.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.013.
[9]
Frattarelli JL, Levi AJ, Miller BT. A prospective novel method of determining ovarian size during in vitro fertilization cycles[J]. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2002, 19(1): 39-41. DOI: 10.1023/a:1014062723606.
[10]
Kwee J, Elting ME, Schats R, et al. Ovarian volume and antral follicle count for the prediction of low and hyper responders with in vitro fertilization[J]. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 2007, 5: 9. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-5-9.
[11]
Takashima A, Takeshita N, Otaka K, et al. Effects of bipolar electrocoagulation versus suture after laparoscopic excision of ovarian endometrioma on the ovarian reserve and outcome of in vitro fertilization[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2013, 39(7): 1246-1252. DOI: 10.1111/jog.12056.
[12]
Asgari Z, Rouholamin S, Hosseini R, et al. Comparing ovarian reserve after laparoscopic excision of endometriotic cysts and hemostasis achieved either by bipolar coagulation or suturing: a randomized clinical trial[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2016, 293(5): 1015-1022. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-015-3918-4.
[13]
Song T, Kim WY, Lee KW, et al. Effect on ovarian reserve of hemostasis by bipolar coagulation versus suture during laparoendoscopic single-site cystectomy for ovarian endometriomas[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2015, 22(3): 415-420. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.11.002.
[14]
Deckers P, Ribeiro SC, Simões R, et al. Systematic review and Meta-analysis of the effect of bipolar electrocoagulation during laparoscopic ovarian endometrioma stripping on ovarian reserve[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2018, 140(1): 11-17. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12338.
[15]
Vignali M, Mabrouk M, Ciocca E, et al. Surgical excision of ovarian endometriomas: does it truly impair ovarian reserve? Long term anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) changes after surgery[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2015, 41(11): 1773-1778. DOI: 10.1111/jog.12830.
[16]
Wang Y, Ruan X, Lu D, et al. Effect of laparoscopic endometrioma cystectomy on anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels[J]. Gynecol Endocrinol, 2019, 35(6): 494-497. DOI: 10.1080/09513590.2018.1549220.
[17]
Cranney R, Condous G, Reid S. An update on the diagnosis, surgical management, and fertility outcomes for women with endometrioma[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2017, 96(6): 633-643. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13114.
[18]
Saridogan E, Becker CM, Feki A, et al. Recommendations for the surgical treatment of endometriosis-part 1: ovarian endometrioma[J]. Gynecol Surg, 2017, 14(1): 27. DOI: 10.1186/s10397-017-1029-x.
[19]
Muzii L, Marana R, Angioli R, et al. Histologic analysis of specimens from laparoscopic endometrioma excision performed by different surgeons: does the surgeon matter？[J]. Fertil Steril, 2011, 95(6): 2116-2119. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.034.
[1] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[2] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[3] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[4] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[5] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[8] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[9] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[10] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[11] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[12] 冯旺, 马振中, 汤林花. CT扫描三维重建在肝内胆管细胞癌腹腔镜肝切除术中的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 104-107.
[13] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[14] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[15] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号

AI
小
编
AI小编
你好！我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编，有什么可以帮您的吗？