Zhonghua yi xue za zhi · 2010
[Comparative study on the effects of LEEP and laser CO(2) vaporization in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяМногоцентровое 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, Bian Mei-Lu, Wei Li-Hui, Yang Jia-Xin, Yang Li, Cheng Ning-Hai, Wang You-Fang, Cheng Xue-Mei, Hu Li-Jun, Lang Jing-He, Shen Keng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: to compare the effect and complications of loop electro-surgical excision procedure (LEEP) and laser CO(2) vaporization in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II.
METHODS: a total of 338 CINII women were recruited into this multi-center comparative study. The diagnosis was confirmed by histopathological examination for cervical epithelial cell abnormalities. And colposcopic examination was submitted to LEEP (n = 195) or laser CO(2) vaporization (n = 143) respectively. A post-treatment follow-up of 3, 6 and 12 months was carried out to compare the effect of two methods.
RESULTS: among 195 women undergoing LEEP, the frequency of cure, persistent and recurrent CIN was 89.2% (n = 174), 4.1% (n = 8) and 3.6% (n = 7) respectively. And among 143 women receiving laser CO(2) vaporization, the frequency of cure, persistent and recurrent CIN was 86.7% (n = 124), 4.9% (n = 7) and 0.70% (n = 1) respectively. There was no statistical difference in cure rates, persistence or recurrence of CIN (P > 0.05). The recovery time, the operative frequency and intra-operative blood loss were significantly different in two groups.
CONCLUSION: both LEEP and CO(2) vaporization are both effective and reliable for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II. However, pathological specimens may be harvested during LEEP. It is of vital importance to conduct preoperative colposcopic assessment and standard postoperative follow-ups.
METHODS: a total of 338 CINII women were recruited into this multi-center comparative study. The diagnosis was confirmed by histopathological examination for cervical epithelial cell abnormalities. And colposcopic examination was submitted to LEEP (n = 195) or laser CO(2) vaporization (n = 143) respectively. A post-treatment follow-up of 3, 6 and 12 months was carried out to compare the effect of two methods.
RESULTS: among 195 women undergoing LEEP, the frequency of cure, persistent and recurrent CIN was 89.2% (n = 174), 4.1% (n = 8) and 3.6% (n = 7) respectively. And among 143 women receiving laser CO(2) vaporization, the frequency of cure, persistent and recurrent CIN was 86.7% (n = 124), 4.9% (n = 7) and 0.70% (n = 1) respectively. There was no statistical difference in cure rates, persistence or recurrence of CIN (P > 0.05). The recovery time, the operative frequency and intra-operative blood loss were significantly different in two groups.
CONCLUSION: both LEEP and CO(2) vaporization are both effective and reliable for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II. However, pathological specimens may be harvested during LEEP. It is of vital importance to conduct preoperative colposcopic assessment and standard postoperative follow-ups.