Literature DB >> 20156211

The volume perspective: a comparison of two excisional treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (laser versus LLETZ).

S V Phadnis1, A Atilade, M P A Young, H Evans, P G Walker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare two excisional treatments, laser cone biopsy and large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ), in terms of the volume of tissue removed, and to determine the relation between the height and the total volume of the cone specimen.
DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Large teaching hospital in London. POPULATION: A total of 1136 eligible excisional treatments (laser cone or large loop excision of the transformation zone, LLETZ).
METHODS: Eligible excisional treatments (laser cone or LLETZ) performed between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2007 in our colposcopy unit were identified using the Infoflex(R) database. The total volume of the cone biopsy was calculated mathematically using the data provided in the histopathology reports. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The volume of the cone biopsy was compared with the technique of excision and the histology grades.
RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-nine laser cone biopsies were performed, whereas 797 LLETZ biopsies were recorded, during the study period. There was no difference in the mean age in the two groups. However, there is a proportional increase in the volume of the cone as the height of the cone increases, and a significant number of the values are skewed, suggesting that the diameter of the base of the cone contributes significantly to the total volume. Laser cone biopsies (median volume 1.84 cm(3), 95% CI 1.98-2.54 cm(3)) account for a larger volume of tissue excised compared with LLETZ (median volume 0.78 cm(3), 95% CI 0.91-1.02 cm(3)) (P < 0.0001). This relationship is not altered when the two procedures are stratified for grade of lesion, i.e. excision for low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) (laser median volume 1.55 cm(3), 95% CI 1.46-2.06; LLETZ median volume 0.62 cm(3), 95% CI 0.73-0.88 cm(3)) (P < 0.0001) or high-grade CIN (laser median volume 1.84 cm(3), 95% CI 2.11-2.53 cm(3); LLETZ median volume 0.82 cm(3), 95% CI 0.94-1.07 cm(3)) (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The volume of cervical tissue removed during laser conisation is significantly more than that removed with LLETZ. The indication of the cone biopsy does influence the volume of tissue removed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20156211     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02501.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  4 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

2.  Risk of preterm delivery with increasing depth of excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: nested case-control study.

Authors:  Alejandra Castanon; Rebecca Landy; Peter Brocklehurst; Heather Evans; Donald Peebles; Naveena Singh; Patrick Walker; Julietta Patnick; Peter Sasieni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-11-05

3.  Effect of age and cone dimensions on cervical regeneration: an Italian multicentric prospective observational study.

Authors:  Andrea Ciavattini; Giovanni Delli Carpini; Lorenzo Moriconi; Nicolò Clemente; Nina Montik; Rosa De Vincenzo; Anna Del Fabro; Monica Buttignol; Caterina Ricci; Francesca Moro; Francesco Sopracordevole
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Influence of training level on cervical cone size and resection margin status at conization: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Eliana Montanari; Christoph Grimm; Richard Schwameis; Lorenz Kuessel; Stephan Polterauer; Chiara Paternostro; Heinrich Husslein
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 2.344

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.