European journal of gynaecological oncology · 2011
Cervical conization--treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma in situ.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Perisic Z, Perisic M, Karapandzic V P, Vasiljevic M, Raznatovic S J, Jurisic A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Cone biopsy is the best treatment for high-grade premalignant cervical changes. Cervical intraepithelial changes do not show any clinical picture until the process develops into carcinoma.
METHOD: This retrospective study included 395 women who underwent conization at Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic "Narodni front" during 2009. The chi-square test was used for comparing results.
RESULTS: Pathohistological findings from biospy and conization were identical in 40.50% of patients, in 10.13%, the conization finding was more severe than the biopsy finding, while in 49.37% less severe than the biopsy finding. Resection margins status analysis showed that 12.66% of cones were positive. Comparison between cones with positive margins and operative techniques did not show any statistically significant difference; 64% of women with positive margins were over the age of 35.
CONCLUSION: Operative conization techniques are equally represented. However in women over the age of 40 scalpel excision methods are recommended. In women over the age of 45 there is a statistically significant increase in the risk for positive resection margin with CIN3 and glandular lesions.
METHOD: This retrospective study included 395 women who underwent conization at Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic "Narodni front" during 2009. The chi-square test was used for comparing results.
RESULTS: Pathohistological findings from biospy and conization were identical in 40.50% of patients, in 10.13%, the conization finding was more severe than the biopsy finding, while in 49.37% less severe than the biopsy finding. Resection margins status analysis showed that 12.66% of cones were positive. Comparison between cones with positive margins and operative techniques did not show any statistically significant difference; 64% of women with positive margins were over the age of 35.
CONCLUSION: Operative conization techniques are equally represented. However in women over the age of 40 scalpel excision methods are recommended. In women over the age of 45 there is a statistically significant increase in the risk for positive resection margin with CIN3 and glandular lesions.