天津医药

天津医药 ›› 2017, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (1): 76-78.doi: 10.11958/20160669

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

放置宫内节育器对输卵管阻塞性不孕的影响 #br# #br#

张爱丹   

  1. 沈阳市计划生育科学研究所
  • 收稿日期:2016-07-12 修回日期:2016-12-06 出版日期:2017-01-15 发布日期:2017-01-15
  • 通讯作者: 张爱丹 E-mail:1455579145@qq.com

The affects of placement of intrauterine device on the incidence of fallopian tube obstruction #br# #br#

ZHANG Ai-dan #br# #br#   

  • Received:2016-07-12 Revised:2016-12-06 Published:2017-01-15 Online:2017-01-15

PDF (PC)

3335

摘要： 摘要： 目的 探讨放置宫内节育器（IUD）是否增加输卵管阻塞性不孕的发生率。方法 选择 2014 年 1 月— 2015 年 12 月沈阳市计划生育科学研究所继发性不孕患者 458 例为观察人群， 以既往使用 IUD、 取出后未孕的 246 例为 IUD 组， 无 IUD 使用史的 212 例为对照组。根据 2 组病史、 白带常规、 支原体 （UU）、 衣原体 （CT）、 盆腔 B 超及输 卵管造影（HSG）检查结果， 综合分析放置 IUD 是否增加输卵管阻塞性不孕发生风险。结果 IUD 组输卵管阻塞者 较输卵管通畅者生殖道感染发生率高（盆腔炎： 32.6% vs. 15.7%； CT： 23.9% vs. 9.3%； UU： 42.8% vs. 18.5%； 阴道炎： 36.2% vs. 24.1%； 均 P＜0.05）。IUD 组中， 输卵管阻塞占 56.1% （138/246）， 对照组中输卵管阻塞占 63.7% （135/212）， 2 组输卵管阻塞发生率差异无统计学意义 （P > 0.05）； 2 组输卵管阻塞者的宫腔操作史和生殖道感染发生率差异无统计 学意义（宫腔操作史： 55.8% vs. 45.2%； 盆腔炎： 32.6% vs. 39.3%； 阴道炎： 36.2% vs. 34.1%； CT： 23.9% vs. 27.4%； UU： 42.8% vs. 40.7%； 均 P > 0.05）。结论 未发现放置 IUD 与输卵管阻塞存在必然联系， IUD 不增加输卵管阻塞的发生率

关键词: 输卵管, 输卵管堵塞, 宫内节育器, 生殖道感染

Abstract: Abstract: Objective To investigate whether the placement of intrauterine device (IUD) can increase the incidence of fallopian tube obstruction. Methods A total of 458 patients with secondary infertility who visited the outpatient clinic between January 2014 and December 2015 were selected for observation group, of which, 246 cases who used IUD in the past but were not pregnant were the IUD group, and 212 cases with no history of using IUD were the control group. According to the medical history of two groups，and based on test results of gynecological routine inspection, mycoplasma (UU), chlamydia (CT), type B ultrasound examination of pelvic cavity and hysterosalpingography (HSG) in two groups, whether the placement of IUD increased the risk of fallopian tube obstructive infertility was comprehensively analyzed. Results There was a higher incidence of reproduction tract infection in patients with fallopian tube obstruction than that in patients without fallopian tube obstruction in IUD group (pelvic infection 32.6% vs. 15.7%， CT 23.9% vs. 9.3%， UU 42.8% vs. 18.5% , vaginitis 36.2% vs. 24.1%， P＜0.05). Results showed that 56.1% (138/248) patients were found fallopian tube obstruction in IUD group, and 63.7% (135/212) in control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P＞0.05). There were no significant differences in history of uterine cavity operations and incidence of reproductive tract infection between two groups of patients with tubal obstruction（uterine cavity operations 55.8% vs. 45.2%， pelvic infection 32.6% vs. 39.3% ， vaginitis 36.2% vs. 34.1% , CT 23.9% vs. 27.4% ， UU 42.8% vs. 40.7% ，P＞0.05). Conclusion There is no necessary correlation between fallopian tube obstruction and placement of IUD, which therefore will not increase the incidence of fallopian tube obstruction.

Key words: fallopian tubes, fallopian tube obstruction, intrauterine device, reproductive tract infection