메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Objective: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of nerve-sparing radicalhysterectomy (NSRH) in preserving bladder function and its oncologic safety in the treatment of cervical cancer. Methods: From March 2003 to November 2005, 92 patients with cervical cancer stage IA2 to IIA were randomly assigned forsurgical treatment with conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH) or NSRH, and 86 patients finally included in the analysis. Adequacy of nerve sparing, radicality, bladder function, and oncologic safety were assessed by quantifying the nerve fibers inthe paracervix, measuring the extent of paracervix and harvested lymph nodes (LNs), urodynamic study (UDS) with InternationalProstate Symptom Score (IPSS), and 10-year disease-free survival (DFS), respectively. Results: There were no differences in clinicopathologic characteristics between two groups. The median number of nerve fiberwas 12 (range, 6 to 21) and 30 (range, 17 to 45) in the NSRH and CRH, respectively (p<0.001). The extent of resected paracervixand number of LNs were not different between the two groups. Volume of residual urine and bladder compliance weresignificantly deteriorated at 12 months after CRH. On the contrary, all parameters of UDS were recovered no later than 3 monthsafter NSRH. Evaluation of the IPSS showed that the frequency of long-term urinary symptom was higher in CRH than in theNSRH group. The median duration before the postvoid residual urine volume became less than 50 mL was 11 days (range, 7 to26 days) in NSRH group and was 18 days (range, 10 to 85 days) in CRH group (p<0.001). No significant difference was observedin the 10-year DFS between two groups. Conclusion: NSRH appears to be effective in preserving bladder function without sacrificing oncologic safety.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (29)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0