Literature DB >> 10600289

Randomized study comparing two techniques of conization: cold knife versus loop excision.

P L Giacalone1, F Laffargue, N Aligier, P Roger, J Combecal, J P Daures.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the histomorphologic and colposcopic results of cold knife conization and loop excision.
METHODS: Sixty-six women were randomly allocated to have the cone specimen removed by cold knife excision (n = 38) or loop excision (n = 28). Subjects eligible for inclusion were those who presented histologically verified grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or grade 2 CIN with squamocolumnar junction not seen.
RESULTS: The mean height of the cone specimens was greater in the cold knife group [18.9 mm (SD = 5. 5) and 12.8 mm (SD = 4.3), respectively; P = 0.0001], as was the frequency of clear margins (100 and 80%, respectively; P = 0.001). In the loop excision group, thermal injuries were present in half of the cone sections. The median (range) thickness of thermal injury was 0.98 mm (0-1.5 mm) in the ectocervix and 0.95 mm (0-1.75 mm) in the endocervix. Histologic evaluation of the endocervical margins was not possible in 2 cases (7%). At follow-up colposcopy, evaluation of the entire squamocolumnar junction was possible in 15 (39%) and 20 (71%) women, respectively (P < 0.01). Four patients in the cold knife group and 6 in the loop group had histologically confirmed persistent dysplasia (P > 0.05), yielding success rates of 90 and 79%, respectively (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Loop excision provides a sample that is adequate for histologic evaluation in most cases, results in the same success rate as cold knife conization, and allows optimal colposcopic surveillance in significantly more cases than cold knife excision. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10600289     DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5626

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  6 in total

1.  The safety of conization in the management of adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix.

Authors:  Mi-La Kim; Ho-Suap Hahn; Kyung-Taek Lim; Ki-Heon Lee; Hy-Sook Kim; Sung-Ran Hong; Tae-Jin Kim
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 4.401

Review 2.  Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Andrew Bryant; Heather O Dickinson; Sarah L Keep
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-06-16

3.  Predicting persistent/recurrent disease in the cervix after excisional biopsy.

Authors:  Sanjay M Ramchandani; Karen L Houck; Enrique Hernandez; John P Gaughan
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2007-04-30

Review 4.  Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  Pierre P L Martin-Hirsch; Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Andrew Bryant; Heather O Dickinson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-12-04

5.  Meta-analysis of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  Yan-Ming Jiang; Chang-Xian Chen; Li Li
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Efficacy and safety of cryotherapy, cold cone or thermocoagulation compared to LEEP as a therapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: Systematic review.

Authors:  Yamilée Hurtado-Roca; Naysha Becerra-Chauca; Magaly Malca
Journal:  Rev Saude Publica       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 2.106

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.