OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic ability and treatment efficacy of conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure with cold-knife conization. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred eighty women who required conization for diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia or microinvasive cervical carcinoma were prospectively enrolled in a randomized clinical trial to receive either cold-knife conization or conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Conization complications, rate of lesion clearance, and therapeutic outcome were assessed for the 2 study groups. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in the complication rate (P = 1.00), the rate of lesion clearance (P =.18), or the rate of disease recurrence (P =.13) between the 2 study groups. The mean follow-up was 11.2 months in the cold-knife conization group and 10.4 months in the loop-excision conization group. CONCLUSION:Cold-knife conization and loop-excision conization yield similar diagnostic and therapeutic results.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic ability and treatment efficacy of conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure with cold-knife conization. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred eighty women who required conization for diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia or microinvasive cervical carcinoma were prospectively enrolled in a randomized clinical trial to receive either cold-knife conization or conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Conization complications, rate of lesion clearance, and therapeutic outcome were assessed for the 2 study groups. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in the complication rate (P = 1.00), the rate of lesion clearance (P =.18), or the rate of disease recurrence (P =.13) between the 2 study groups. The mean follow-up was 11.2 months in the cold-knife conization group and 10.4 months in the loop-excision conization group. CONCLUSION: Cold-knife conization and loop-excision conization yield similar diagnostic and therapeutic results.
Authors: Shayna N Conner; Alison G Cahill; Methodius G Tuuli; David M Stamilio; Anthony O Odibo; Kimberly A Roehl; George A Macones Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: G F Vercellino; V Chiantera; J Gaßmann; E Erdemoglu; I Drechsler; S Frangini; A Schneider; G Böhmer Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Andrew Bryant; Heather O Dickinson; Sarah L Keep Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2010-06-16
Authors: Heather A Frey; Molly J Stout; Anthony O Odibo; David M Stamilio; Alison G Cahill; Kimberly A Roehl; George A Macones Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.661