Literature DB >> 23843155

Pregnancy outcome following loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gong Jin1, Zhang LanLan, Chen Li, Zhang Dan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing the association of the relative risk (RR) of adverse pregnancy outcomes with previous treatment of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).
METHODS: Data sources were from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCI citation tracking. SELECTION CRITERIA: The eligible studies had data on pregnancy outcomes of women with or without previous treatment for CIN. Considered outcomes were severe preterm delivery (<34/32 weeks), extreme preterm delivery (<28 weeks), low birth weight (<2,500 g), stillbirth, preterm spontaneous rupture of membranes, perinatal mortality, and neonatal mortality and induction.
RESULTS: 36,954 cases and 1,794,174 controls in 4 prospective cohort and 22 retrospective studies were included in this meta-analysis. LEEP was associated with a higher risk of severe preterm delivery (<32 weeks, relative risk 1.98, 95% CI [1.31, 2.98] 159/11,337 vs. 7,830/860,883), extreme preterm delivery (<28 weeks, RR, 2.33, 95% CI [1.84, 2.94] 97/9,611 vs. 1,559/618,332), preterm premature rupture of the membranes (RR, 1.88, 95% CI [1.54, 2.29] 126/2,837 vs. 7,899/313,094), and low birth weight (<2,500 g, RR, 2.48, 95% CI [1.75, 3.51] 110/1,451 vs. 55/1,742). A cervical length of less than 3 cm was significantly increased in LEEP as compared with that of control group (RR, 4.88, 95% CI [1.56, 15.25]), but increasing LEEP volume or depth was not associated with an increased rate of preterm birth <37 weeks. And LEEP was not associated with a significantly increased risk of perinatal mortality, cesarean section, stillbirth mortality, neonatal mortality, induction, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.
CONCLUSIONS: LEEP is associated with an increased risk of subsequent preterm delivery (<32/34, <28 weeks) and other serious pregnancy outcomes. But increasing LEEP volume or depth is not associated with an increased rate of preterm birth.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23843155     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-013-2955-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.344


  21 in total

1.  How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Authors:  Anita L Iyer; M Kate Bundorf; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Pascale-Renée Cyr; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.497

2.  A stratified randomized double-blind phase II trial of celecoxib for treating patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: The potential predictive value of VEGF serum levels: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

Authors:  Janet S Rader; Michael W Sill; Jan H Beumer; Heather A Lankes; Doris Mangiaracina Benbrook; Francisco Garcia; Connie Trimble; J Tate Thigpen; Richard Lieberman; Rosemary E Zuna; Charles A Leath; Nick M Spirtos; John Byron; Premal H Thaker; Shashikant Lele; David Alberts
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Adherence to the 2012 national cervical cancer screening guidelines: a pilot study.

Authors:  Deanna G K Teoh; Amity E Marriott; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Ryan T Marriott; Charles W Lais; Levi S Downs; Shalini L Kulasingam
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Topical Imiquimod for the Treatment of High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the Cervix: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Bruno O Fonseca; Júlio C Possati-Resende; Mila P Salcedo; Kathleen M Schmeler; Guilherme S Accorsi; José H T G Fregnani; Marcio Antoniazzi; Naitielle P Pantano; Iara V V Santana; Graziela M Matsushita; Ricardo Dos Reis
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Comparison of two surgical methods for the treatment of CIN: classical LLETZ (large-loop excision of the transformation zone) versus isolated resection of the colposcopic apparent lesion - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Theresa M Schwarz; Thomas Kolben; Julia Gallwas; Alexander Crispin; Christian Dannecker
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Excisional Treatment of Cervical Dysplasia in Australia 2004-2013: A Population-Based Study.

Authors:  Gregory Robertson; Stephen J Robson
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 4.375

7.  Maternal Characteristics, Short Mid-Trimester Cervical Length, and Preterm Delivery.

Authors:  Soo Hyun Cho; Kyo Hoon Park; Eun Young Jung; Jung Kyung Joo; Ji Ae Jang; Ha Na Yoo
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.153

8.  Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.

Authors:  P R Cyr; K Pedersen; A L Iyer; M K Bundorf; J D Goldhaber-Fiebert; D Gyrd-Hansen; I S Kristiansen; E A Burger
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-06-23

9.  The potential harms of primary human papillomavirus screening in over-screened women: a microsimulation study.

Authors:  Steffie K Naber; Inge M C M de Kok; Suzette M Matthijsse; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 10.  Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis.

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.