OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether previous loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) affects the risk of cesarean delivery. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed. Women who underwent a prior LEEP were compared with two unexposed cohorts: 1) women with prior screening cervical cytology only; and 2) women with prior cervical punch biopsy. The pregnancy evaluated in this analysis was the first pregnancy of a duration more than 20 weeks of gestation after the identifying cervical procedure. Stratified and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to control for confounding. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-eight women with prior LEEP, 588 women with screening cytology only, and 552 women with cervical biopsy were included in this study. After adjusting for relevant confounders, similar rates of cesarean delivery were seen in women with prior LEEP (31.6%) and women with prior cervical cytology only (29.3%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.41). Likewise, no differences were found in rates of cesarean delivery when women with prior LEEP were compared with those with a prior punch biopsy (29.0%, adjusted OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74-1.33). Among women who had a cesarean delivery, arrest of labor was the indication for cesarean delivery in a similar proportion of women in the groups (LEEP compared with cytology only, P=.12; LEEP compared with biopsy, P=.50). Loop electrosurgical excision procedure specimen size did not vary by delivery mode. Length of time between LEEP and subsequent pregnancy also did not influence delivery mode. CONCLUSION: Loop electrosurgical excision procedure does not affect mode of delivery in the subsequent pregnancy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether previous loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) affects the risk of cesarean delivery. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed. Women who underwent a prior LEEP were compared with two unexposed cohorts: 1) women with prior screening cervical cytology only; and 2) women with prior cervical punch biopsy. The pregnancy evaluated in this analysis was the first pregnancy of a duration more than 20 weeks of gestation after the identifying cervical procedure. Stratified and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to control for confounding. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-eight women with prior LEEP, 588 women with screening cytology only, and 552 women with cervical biopsy were included in this study. After adjusting for relevant confounders, similar rates of cesarean delivery were seen in women with prior LEEP (31.6%) and women with prior cervical cytology only (29.3%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.41). Likewise, no differences were found in rates of cesarean delivery when women with prior LEEP were compared with those with a prior punch biopsy (29.0%, adjusted OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74-1.33). Among women who had a cesarean delivery, arrest of labor was the indication for cesarean delivery in a similar proportion of women in the groups (LEEP compared with cytology only, P=.12; LEEP compared with biopsy, P=.50). Loop electrosurgical excision procedure specimen size did not vary by delivery mode. Length of time between LEEP and subsequent pregnancy also did not influence delivery mode. CONCLUSION: Loop electrosurgical excision procedure does not affect mode of delivery in the subsequent pregnancy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Philipp Klaritsch; Olaf Reich; Albrecht Giuliani; Karl Tamussino; Josef Haas; Raimund Winter Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Claudia L Werner; Julie Y Lo; Thomas Heffernan; William F Griffith; Donald D McIntire; Kenneth J Leveno Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Emma L Barber; Lisbet S Lundsberg; Kathleen Belanger; Christian M Pettker; Edmund F Funai; Jessica L Illuzzi Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Thomas C Wright; L Stewart Massad; Charles J Dunton; Mark Spitzer; Edward J Wilkinson; Diane Solomon Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Maria Kyrgiou; Antonios Athanasiou; Maria Paraskevaidi; Anita Mitra; Ilkka Kalliala; Pierre Martin-Hirsch; Marc Arbyn; Phillip Bennett; Evangelos Paraskevaidis Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-07-28