Gynecologic oncology · 2000
Cavitational ultrasonic surgical aspiration for the treatment of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia.
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.
Robinson J B, Sun C C, Bodurka-Bevers D, Im D D, Rosenshein N B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine whether cavitational ultrasonic surgical aspiration (CUSA) is effective and safe for treating vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 46 patients who were treated with CUSA for VAIN in a single gynecologic oncology practice between 1981 and 1999.
RESULTS: At initial presentation, 39% of treated patients had grade I VAIN, 20% had grade II, and 41% had grade III. The mean duration of follow-up from initial CUSA treatment was 21 months. Twenty-nine patients (63%) were initially treated with CUSA, 7 patients (15%) with laser vaporization, 7 patients (15%) with surveillance by Papanicolaou smear, 1 patient (2%) with partial vaginectomy, 1 patient (2%) with 5-fluorouracil, and 1 patient (2%) with loop excision. Patients initially treated with CUSA had a higher percentage of grade III VAIN at diagnosis (48%) than did patients initially treated with other methods (29%). A significantly greater proportion of patients initially treated with CUSA had no recurrence of VAIN (66%) compared with patients initially treated with other methods (0%) (P < 0.0001). A significantly greater proportion of patients who were treated for recurrent disease with CUSA had no further recurrence (52%) compared with patients treated for recurrent disease with other methods (9%) (P < 0.001). No patient treated with CUSA reported adverse effects; 7 patients treated with other methods reported dysuria, burning, and pain.
CONCLUSION: These initial data suggest that CUSA is a safe and effective method for treating VAIN and may be an appropriate treatment for many patients.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 46 patients who were treated with CUSA for VAIN in a single gynecologic oncology practice between 1981 and 1999.
RESULTS: At initial presentation, 39% of treated patients had grade I VAIN, 20% had grade II, and 41% had grade III. The mean duration of follow-up from initial CUSA treatment was 21 months. Twenty-nine patients (63%) were initially treated with CUSA, 7 patients (15%) with laser vaporization, 7 patients (15%) with surveillance by Papanicolaou smear, 1 patient (2%) with partial vaginectomy, 1 patient (2%) with 5-fluorouracil, and 1 patient (2%) with loop excision. Patients initially treated with CUSA had a higher percentage of grade III VAIN at diagnosis (48%) than did patients initially treated with other methods (29%). A significantly greater proportion of patients initially treated with CUSA had no recurrence of VAIN (66%) compared with patients initially treated with other methods (0%) (P < 0.0001). A significantly greater proportion of patients who were treated for recurrent disease with CUSA had no further recurrence (52%) compared with patients treated for recurrent disease with other methods (9%) (P < 0.001). No patient treated with CUSA reported adverse effects; 7 patients treated with other methods reported dysuria, burning, and pain.
CONCLUSION: These initial data suggest that CUSA is a safe and effective method for treating VAIN and may be an appropriate treatment for many patients.