112例LEEP环切病理诊断和宫颈液基细胞学及活检结果对比分析.docVIP

112例LEEP环切病理诊断和宫颈液基细胞学及活检结果对比分析 　　[摘要] 目的 探讨宫颈高频电波刀宫颈电圈环切术（LEEP）与宫颈液基细胞学检测（LCT）及阴道镜下多点活检病理诊断结果的差异。 方法 选取我院妇科2012年1月～2015年6月112例宫颈LEEP治疗的患者为研究对象，对比分析其LEEP病理诊断结果与LCT、阴道镜下多点活检的差异。 结果 LCT结果与LEEP病理诊断的符合率为72.32%（81/112）；阴道镜下多点活检与LEEP病理诊断的符合率是75.89%（85/112），LEEP与LCT及阴道镜下多点活检结果对比，差别有统计学意义（P0.05）。2例LCT提示为宫颈高级别鳞状上皮内瘤变（HSIL），活检结果为阴性，经宫颈环切后病理诊断为宫颈高级别上皮内瘤变（CINⅡ）。 结论 LCT细胞学检查和阴道镜下多点活检与宫颈电环切除术后的病理结果具有差异，临床医师仅依赖细胞学检查结果作出CIN诊断是不充分的；宫颈上皮内瘤变（CIN）具有多病灶共存特点，阴道镜活检有其局限性。对液基细胞学检出有异常细胞而活检无异常时，行宫颈环切术是恰当的。 　　[关键词] 高频电波刀宫颈电圈环切术；宫颈上皮内瘤变；液基细胞学；多点病理活检 　　[中图分类号] R446 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1674-4721（2016）05（c）-0112-03 　　Comparing analysis of LEEP pathology diagnose and liquid-based cytology and biopsy result of cervix 　　LI You-heng XU Hong ZENG Xun 　　Department of Pathology，Shekou People′s Hospital of Shenzhen City，Shenzhen 518067，China 　　[Abstract] Objective To explore the difference of pathology diagnose results among loop electrosurgical excision procedure（LEEP），liquid-based cytology test（LCT） and multi-point biopsy under colposcope. Methods 112 patients with cervix LEEP treatment were selected as study object.The difference of pathology diagnose results among LEEP，LCT and multi-point biopsy under colposcope were analyzed. Results The coincidence rate between LCT and LEEP was 72.32%（81/112）；The coincidence rate between multi-point biopsy under colposcope and LEEP pathology diagnose was 75.89%（85/112）.Compared the results among LEEP，LCT and multi-point biopsy under colposcope，the difference had obvious difference （P0.05）.2 cases of LCT showed that cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia and the biopsy result was negative，but pathology diagnose result of LEEP was CINⅡ. Conclusion The LCT cytological examination，the pathology results of multi-point biopsy under colposcope and LEEP have difference，CIN diagnosis of only relying on cytology result by clinicians are not sufficient；CIN has the feature of multifocal coexistence，microscopically multi-point biopsy has limits.When liquid-b