The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2012
Value-based medicine analysis on loop electrosurgical excision procedure and CO2 laser vaporization for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Sun Lu-lu, Cao Dong-yan, Yang Jia-xin, Bian Mei-lu, Wei Li-hui, Shen Keng
Аннотация
AIM: The best treatment option for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN2) is controversial and there is a lack of studies in value-based medicine. This multicenter comparative study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectives and quality of life (QOL) of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and CO(2) laser vaporization for the treatment of CIN2.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A database of LEEP and laser vaporizations performed at three research centers was created. Patients with colposcopic-histopathologically confirmed CIN2 were randomly submitted to LEEP and laser vaporization. Cytology, human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA test and histology were performed, and a questionnaire on QOL was filled out during follow-up. Effectiveness, cost-effectives and QOL were analyzed.
RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-eight women with CIN2 were included in the study. Frequencies of remission, and persistent and recurrent CIN were 89.2%, 7.2%, and 3.6% for LEEP, and 86.7%, 12.6%, 0.70% for laser, respectively. There was no significant difference in remission and persistence of CIN. There was a significant difference in the number of operations, recovery time and costs. Women treated with two methods showed relatively identical QOL.
CONCLUSION: Both LEEP and CO(2) laser vaporization are effective and reliable treatments for CIN2, whereas cervical tissue can be obtained for histology by LEEP. Preoperative evaluation and postoperative follow-up are important. Gynecologists should pay attention to QOL of patients with CIN.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A database of LEEP and laser vaporizations performed at three research centers was created. Patients with colposcopic-histopathologically confirmed CIN2 were randomly submitted to LEEP and laser vaporization. Cytology, human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA test and histology were performed, and a questionnaire on QOL was filled out during follow-up. Effectiveness, cost-effectives and QOL were analyzed.
RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-eight women with CIN2 were included in the study. Frequencies of remission, and persistent and recurrent CIN were 89.2%, 7.2%, and 3.6% for LEEP, and 86.7%, 12.6%, 0.70% for laser, respectively. There was no significant difference in remission and persistence of CIN. There was a significant difference in the number of operations, recovery time and costs. Women treated with two methods showed relatively identical QOL.
CONCLUSION: Both LEEP and CO(2) laser vaporization are effective and reliable treatments for CIN2, whereas cervical tissue can be obtained for histology by LEEP. Preoperative evaluation and postoperative follow-up are important. Gynecologists should pay attention to QOL of patients with CIN.