Complications, after-effects of conizations and follow-up of patients after treatment: Assessment of 3 conization methods;Complications, séquelles et devenir du col traité par conisation: Évaluation à travers 3 techniques opératoires

Journal de Gynecologie Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 558-564

  Brun, J L ^a   Youbi, A ^a   Hocke C ^a  

^a HÔPITAL PELLEGRIN   (France)

Author keywords

Complications; Conization; Follow up; Operative procedures

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; ELECTROSURGERY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RECURRENCE RISK; STENOSIS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; UTERINE CERVIX CONIZATION; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONIZATION; CONSTRICTION, PATHOLOGIC; ELECTROSURGERY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; RECURRENCE; RISK FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA;

EID: 0036807261     PISSN: 03682315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Kristensen GB, Jensen LK, Holund B. A randomized trial comparing two methods of cold knife conization with laser conization. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 1009-13.
2. Oyesanya OA, Amerasinghe CN, Manning EAD. Outpatient excisional management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. A prospective, randomized comparison between loop diathermy excision and laser excisional conization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 485-8.
3. Girardi F, Heydarfadai M, Koroschetz F, Pickel H, Winter R. Cold-knife conization versus loop excision: Histopathologic and clinical results of a randomizeds trial. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 55: 368-70.
4. Mathevet P, Dargent D, Roy M, Beau G. A randomized prospective study comparing three techniques of conization: Cold knife, laser and LEEP. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 54: 175-9.
5. Santos C, Galdos R, Alvarez M, Velarde C, Barriga O, Dyer R, et al. One-session management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: A solution for developing countries. A prospective, randomized trial of LEEP versus laser excisional conization. Gynecol Oncol 1996; 61: 11-5.
6. Giacalone PL, Laffargue F, Aligier N, Roger P, Combecal J, Daures JP. Randomized study comparing two techniques of conization: Cold knife versus loop excision. Gynecol Oncol 1999; 75: 356-60.
7. Takac I, Gorisek B. Cold knife conization and loop excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Tumori 1999; 85: 243-6.
8. Duggan BD, Felix JC, Muderspach LI, Gebhardt JA, Groshen S, Morrow CP. Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: A randomized, prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 276-82.
9. Vejerslev LO, Schouenborg L, Sorensen F, Nielsen D, Sorensen SS, Juhl BR, et al. Loop diathermy or laser excisional conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 900-5.
10. Lu CH, Liu FS, Tseng JJ, Ho ES. Predictive factors for residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following conization for CIN III. Gynecol Oncol 2000; 79: 284-8.
11. Krebs HB, Pastore L, Helmkamp BF. Loop electrosurgical excision procedures for cervical dysplasia: Experience in a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 189-95.
12. Huang LW, Hwang JL. A comparison between loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife conization for treatment of cervical dysplasia: Residual disease in a subsequent hysterectomy specimen. Gynecol Oncol 1999; 73: 12-5.
13. Bretelle F, Cravello L, Yang L, Benmoura D, Roger V, Blanc B. Conisations non in sano: Quelle attitude adopter? Ann Chir 2000; 125: 444-9.
14. Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Ritter J, Meyer P, Philippe E. Risk of cervical stenosis after large loop excision or laser conization. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88: 933-8.
15. Gondry J, Vergne C, Li Kim Mui S, Boulanger JC. La conisation non in sano. Contracept Fertil Sex 1999; 27: 532-6.
16. Mohamed-Noor K, Quinn MA, Tan J. Outcomes after cervical cold knife conization with complete and incomplete excision of abnormal epithelium: A review of 699 cases. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 67: 34-8.
17. Schermerhorn TJ, Hodge J, Saltzman AK, Hackett TE, Sprance HE, Harrison TA. Clinicopathologic variables predictive of residual dysplasia after cervical conisation. J Reprod Med 1997; 42: 189-92.
18. Reich O, Pickel H, Lahousen M, Tamussino K, Winter R. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III: Long-term outcome after cold knife conization with clear margins. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 428-30.
19. Chua KL, Hjerpe A. Human papillomavirus analysis as a prognostic marker following conization of the cervix uteri. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 66: 108-13.
20. Nagai Y, Maehama T, Asato T, Kanazawa K. Persistence of human papillomavirus infection after therapeutic conisation for CIN 3: Is it an alarm for disease recurrence? Gynecol Oncol 2000; 79: 294-9.
21. Jain S, Tseng CJ, Horng SG, Soong YK, Pao CC. Negative predictive value of human papillomavirus test following conisation of the cervix uteri. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 82: 177-80.
22. Lin CT, Tseng CJ, Lai CH, Hsueh S, Huang KG, Huang HJ, et al. Value of human papillomavirus desoxyribonucleic acid testing after conization in the prediction of residual disease in the subsequent hysterectomy specimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184: 940-5.
23. Moore BC, Higgins RV, Laurent SL, Marroum MC, Bellitt P. Predictive factors from cold knife conization for residual cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in subsequent hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173: 361-8.
24. Helkjaer PE, Eriksen PS, Thomsen CF, Skovdal J. Outpatient CO2 laser excisional conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia under local anesthesia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993; 72: 302-6.
25. Narducci F, Occelli B, Boman F, Vinatier D, Leroy JL. Positive margins after conization and risk of persistent lesion. Gynecol Oncol 2000; 76: 311-4.