Obstetrics and gynecology · 1995
Synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator use in patients with unsatisfactory colposcopy.
Клиническое 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.
McCord M L, Stovall T G, Summitt R L, Lipscomb G H, Collins K W, Parsons L H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of a synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator to make an unsatisfactory colposcopic examination satisfactory, thereby avoiding cervical conization.
MATERIALS: From April 1991 to March 1993, 30 women with unsatisfactory colposcopic examinations underwent repeat colposcopy after a synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator had been placed in the endocervical canal for approximately 2 hours.
RESULTS: The reasons for initial unsatisfactory colposcopy in the 30 patients were squamocolumnar junction not seen in its entirety (18 patients, 60%), lesion not seen in its entirety (ten, 33%), and neither transformation zone nor lesion seen in their entirety (two, 7%). Complications were encountered in one patient from whom the dilator could not be removed completely. Of 29 patients undergoing repeat colposcopy, 23 (79%) had satisfactory examinations. In 15 of 30 patients, conization was avoided; it was required in six of 30 (20%) women for persistent unsatisfactory colposcopy (including the patient in whom the dilator broke) and in nine of 30 (30%) for other indications.
CONCLUSIONS: This experience suggests that a synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator can be used in patients with an unsatisfactory colposcopy to achieve a satisfactory examination, thus avoiding cervical conization.
MATERIALS: From April 1991 to March 1993, 30 women with unsatisfactory colposcopic examinations underwent repeat colposcopy after a synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator had been placed in the endocervical canal for approximately 2 hours.
RESULTS: The reasons for initial unsatisfactory colposcopy in the 30 patients were squamocolumnar junction not seen in its entirety (18 patients, 60%), lesion not seen in its entirety (ten, 33%), and neither transformation zone nor lesion seen in their entirety (two, 7%). Complications were encountered in one patient from whom the dilator could not be removed completely. Of 29 patients undergoing repeat colposcopy, 23 (79%) had satisfactory examinations. In 15 of 30 patients, conization was avoided; it was required in six of 30 (20%) women for persistent unsatisfactory colposcopy (including the patient in whom the dilator broke) and in nine of 30 (30%) for other indications.
CONCLUSIONS: This experience suggests that a synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator can be used in patients with an unsatisfactory colposcopy to achieve a satisfactory examination, thus avoiding cervical conization.