Cervical length screening in patients who have undergone loop electrosurgical excision procedure

Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist

Volumn 53, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 909-913

  Parikh, Reshma ^a   Home, Howard ^a   Feinstein, Steven J ^a   Anasti, James N ^a  

^a ST LUKE S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical length; Conization; Loop electrosurgical excision procedure; Preterm labor

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CERVICAL LENGTH MEASUREMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROSURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LOOP ELECTROSURGICAL EXCISION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PREDICTION; PREMATURE LABOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SCREENING TEST; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY;

ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; COHORT STUDIES; ELECTROSURGERY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PREGNANCY; PREMATURE BIRTH; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 58249100594     PISSN: 00247758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Births: Final data for 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2002-1:103
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Births: Final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003-2:114
3. Goldenberg RL, Rouse DJ: Prevention of premature birth. N Engl J Med 1998;339:313-320
4. Paneth NS: The problem of low birth weight. Future Child 1995;5:19-34
5. McCormick MC: Contribution of low birth weight to infant mortality and childhood morbidity. N Engl J Med 1985;312: 82-90
6. Kristensen J, Langhoff-Roos J, Wittrup M, et al: Cervical conization and preterm delivery/low birth weight: A systematic review of the literature. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993;72:640-644
7. Jones JM, Sweetnam P, Hibbard BM: The outcome of pregnancy after cone biopsy of the cervix: A case control study. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1979;86:913-916
8. Ludviksson K, Sandstrom B: Outcome of pregnancy after cone biopsy: A case control study. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 1982;14:135-142
9. Lee NH: The effect of cone biopsy on subsequent pregnancy outcome. Gynecol Oncol 1978;6:1-6
10. Crane JM: Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1058-1062
11. Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, et al: Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA 2004;291:2100-2106
12. Samson SL, Bentley JR, Fahey TJ, et al: The effect of loop electrosurgical excision procedure on future pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:325-332
13. Acharya G, Kjeldberg I, Hansen SM, et al: Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for management of CIN. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005;272:109-112
14. Althusius SM, Schomagel IJ, Dekker GA, et al: Loop electrosurgical excision procedure of the cervix and time of delivery in subsequent pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001;72:31-34
15. Mathevet P, Chemali E, Roy M, et al: Long term outcome of a randomized study comparing three techniques of conisation: Cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Eur J Obset Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003;106:214-218
16. Crane J, Delaney T, Hutchens D: Transvaginal ultrasonography in the prediction of preterm birth after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:37-44
17. Blomfield PI, Buxton J, Dunn J, et al: Pregnancy outcome after large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169:620-625
18. Haffenden DK, Bigrigg A, Codling BW, et al: Pregnancy following large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:1059-1060
19. Braet PG, Peel JM, Fenton DW: A case controlled study of the outcome of pregnancy following loop diathermy excision of the transformation zone. J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;14:79-82
20. Cruickshank ME, Flannelly G, Campbell DM, et al: Fertility and pregnancy outcome following large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102: 467-470
21. Ferenczy JH, Choukroun D, Falcone T, et al: The effect of cervical LEEP on subsequent pregnancy outcome: North American experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:1246-1250
22. Berghella V, Pereira L, Gariepy A, et al: Prior cone biopsy: Prediction of preterm birth by cervical ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1393-1397
23. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, et al: The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med 1996;334:567-572
24. Gentry DJ, Baggish MS, Brady K, et al: The effects of loop excision of the transformation zone on cervical length: Implications for pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:516-550
25. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsh P, et al: Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: Systematic review and metaanalysis. Lancet 2006;367:489-498
26. Leiman G, Harrison NA, Rubin A: Pregnancy following conization of the cervix: Complications related to cone size. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1980;136:14-18
27. Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, et al: Duration of pregnancy after carbon dioxide laser conization of the cervix: Influence of cone height. Obstet Gynecol 1997,-90i978-982
28. Joseph KS, Kramer MS, Marcoux S, et al: Determinants of preterm birth rates in Canada from 1981-1983 and from 1992-1994. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1131-1139
29. Fanning J, Padratzik J: Cold knife conization vs LEEP: Are they the same procedure? J Reprod Med 2002;47:33-35