Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2012
C-LETZ versus large loop excision of the transformation zone for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Boonlikit Sathone, Thitisagulwong Siriporn
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) with contour-loop excision of the transformation zone (C-LETZ) in management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with respect to number of specimens obtained, weight of specimen, surgical margin, treatment time, and morbidity associated with those procedures.
METHOD: Women were randomly allocated to receive LLETZ or C-LETZ. Inclusion criteria were the following circumstances: (1) presence of biopsy-proved CIN 2/3, (2) persistent biopsy-proved CIN 1, (3) discrepancy between cytology and histology, or 4) an endocervical curettage was positive.
RESULTS: Ninety-eight women were eligible for the study. Mean weight of specimens in C-LETZ group was significantly more than LLETZ group (4.35 ± 1.39 vs. 3.55 ± 1.48 g, p = 0.007). Duration of treatment were similar in both groups (p = 0.39). After multiple logistic regressions were analyzed, C-LETZ was more likely to result in a single pathologic specimen (76 vs. 29.16 %, p < 0.001; adjusted RR 8.33, CI 3.23-21.47). There was no statistical significant difference in the frequency of positive margins between the groups (40 vs. 39.5 %, p = 0.64; adjusted RR 1.27, CI 0.46-3.50). The morbidity associated with those procedures was not different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: C-LETZ has a clear clinical benefit in term of a higher rate of a single pathologic specimen. It removes more cervical tissue than LLETZ. The incidence of incomplete excision and complication seem to be similar in both groups.
METHOD: Women were randomly allocated to receive LLETZ or C-LETZ. Inclusion criteria were the following circumstances: (1) presence of biopsy-proved CIN 2/3, (2) persistent biopsy-proved CIN 1, (3) discrepancy between cytology and histology, or 4) an endocervical curettage was positive.
RESULTS: Ninety-eight women were eligible for the study. Mean weight of specimens in C-LETZ group was significantly more than LLETZ group (4.35 ± 1.39 vs. 3.55 ± 1.48 g, p = 0.007). Duration of treatment were similar in both groups (p = 0.39). After multiple logistic regressions were analyzed, C-LETZ was more likely to result in a single pathologic specimen (76 vs. 29.16 %, p < 0.001; adjusted RR 8.33, CI 3.23-21.47). There was no statistical significant difference in the frequency of positive margins between the groups (40 vs. 39.5 %, p = 0.64; adjusted RR 1.27, CI 0.46-3.50). The morbidity associated with those procedures was not different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: C-LETZ has a clear clinical benefit in term of a higher rate of a single pathologic specimen. It removes more cervical tissue than LLETZ. The incidence of incomplete excision and complication seem to be similar in both groups.