国际妇产科学杂志

国际妇产科学杂志 ›› 2016, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (4): 475-478.

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

Prolift和AMS两种骨盆底修复系统临床应用分析

程青，寇青，沈宇飞，张蕾，谭笑梅，吴元赭   

  1. 210004 南京，南京医科大学附属南京妇幼保健院妇产科（程青，寇青，沈宇飞，张蕾，谭笑梅）；南京军区南京总医院妇产科（吴元赭）
  • 收稿日期:1900-01-01 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2016-08-15 发布日期:2016-08-15
  • 通讯作者: 寇青

Clinical Analysis of Reconstruction of Female Pelvic Floor Reconstruction with Two Kinds of Pelvic Floor Repair System: Prolift and AMS

CHENG Qing, KOU Qing, SHEN Yu-fei, ZHANG Lei, TAN Xiao-mei, WU Yuan-zhe   

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210004, China(CHENG Qing, KOU Qing, SHEN Yu-fei, ZHANG Lei, TAN Xiao-mei); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanjing General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command, Nanjing 210002, China(WU Yuan-zhe)
  • Received:1900-01-01 Revised:1900-01-01 Published:2016-08-15 Online:2016-08-15
  • Contact: KOU Qing

PDF (PC)

5605

摘要： 目的：分析Prolift（Prolift Pelvic Floor）和AMS（AMS Peep Connection Tool）两种盆底修复系统治疗女性盆腔器官脱垂（pelvic organ prolapse，POP）的临床疗效以及并发症的差异。方法：选取南京医科大学附属南京妇幼保健院2010年11月—2013年6月收治的60例POP患者，随机分为Prolift组和AMS组，Prolift组29例，AMS组31例。比较2组患者的临床疗效和并发症。结果：2组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后最高体温、尿管留置时间、残余尿量及住院时间比较差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；排尿困难、会阴部下腹坠胀、网片暴露、阴道壁膨出等术后并发症在2组患者间差异也无统计学意义（P＞0.05），Prolift组患者的疼痛及性生活质量下降的发生率显著高于AMS组（P＜0.05）。结论：应用Prolift和AMS两种盆底修复系统治疗POP，均能实现盆底解剖重建和功能恢复，但AMS比Prolift更具优势。

Abstract: Objective：To compare the clinical curative effect and the difference of compications between the Prolift (Prolift Pelvic Floor) and AMS (AMS Peep Connection Tool) two pelvic floor repair system for treatment of women with pelvic organ prolapse (pelvic organ prolapse, POP). Methods: Sixty patients with POP recruited from Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from November 2010 to June 2013. All patients were randomly divided into Prolift group and AMS group, with 29 patients in Prolift group and 31 patients in AMS group. The clinical efficacy and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: No significant differences were found between the two groups in operating time, intraoperative bleeding and postoperative high body temperature, urinary canal indwelling time and residual urine volume and duration (P＞0.05). In addition, we did not find any differences between the groups in voiding dysfunction, perineum belly bulge, the underlying net exposure, the vaginal wall prolapse and other postoperative complications. The morbidity of pain and poor quality of life were significantly higher in Prolift group compared with the AMS Group（P＜0.05）. Conclusions: Both Prolift and AMS systems can achieve the reconstruction and recovery of anatomy of pelvic floor, but AMS has an advantage over Prolift.