Recurrent Dysplasia After a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure: Local Versus General Anesthesia.
Journal
Journal of lower genital tract disease
ISSN: 1526-0976
Titre abrégé: J Low Genit Tract Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9704963
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Oct 2022
01 Oct 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
24
8
2022
medline:
24
9
2022
entrez:
23
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to compare the rates of positive specimen margins and postconization recurrent dysplasia between loop electrosurgical excision procedures (LEEPs) performed under general anesthesia (GA) and LEEP under local anesthesia (LA). This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive women who underwent LEEP between 2011 and 2019. Collected data included demographics, LEEP indication, cone dimensions, and margin involvement as well as recurrence rate. Women who had undergone previous conization, cold-knife conization, or those who were lost to follow-up during the first 2 years after the procedure were excluded. Overall, 71 women who underwent LEEP under GA and 75 women under LA were included. Demographic characteristics were similar between the groups, as were the rates of preceding abnormal cytology and high-grade dysplasia before conization. Although cone depth and volume were higher for LEEP specimens done under GA compared with LA, the rate of positive specimen margins was comparable both for the endocervical margin (16/71 [22.5%] vs 16/75 [21.3%], respectively; p = .861) and the ectocervical margin (14/71 [19.7%] vs 11/75 [14.7%], respectively; p = .418). During the first 2 years after conization, the rates of high-grade dysplasia (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia ≥ 2) in repeat biopsy and the need for repeat conization were also not significantly different between the GA and LA groups (4.2% vs 1.3%, p = .356; 7.0% vs 9.3%, p = .614, respectively). Anesthesia mode does not seem to affect the rate of positive LEEP margins and the need for repeat conization. Our study findings suggest that LA should be preferred instead of GA in LEEP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35997172
doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000692
pii: 00128360-202210000-00006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
315-318Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, ASCCP.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Prendiville W. Appropriate use of LEEP interventions. J Low Genit Tract Dis 1998;2:254.
World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines for Treatment of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 2–3 and Adenocarcinoma in situ: Cryotherapy, Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone, and Cold Knife Conization. WHO Guidelines 2014;60:1.
Babu S, Redmond A, Lacey M, et al. A retrospective review of the type of anaesthesia used for LLETZ: proposal for a categorisation audit tool. Ir J Med Sci 2017;186:239–41.
Kyrgiou M, Athanasiou A, Paraskevaidi M, et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016;354:i3633.
Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, et al. Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA 2004;291:2100–6.
Rezniczek GA, Hecken JM, Rehman S, et al. Syringe or mask? Loop electrosurgical excision procedure under local or general anesthesia: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;223:888.e1–9.
Cattin J, Rufenacht E, Roesch M, et al. Évaluation de la satisfaction des patientes après conisation en consultation sous anesthésie locale. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2016;45:948–54.
Grimm C, Brammen L, Sliutz G, et al. Impact of conization type on the resected cone volume: results of a retrospective multi-center study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013;288:1081–6.
Mercuzot A, Chevreau J, Sevestre H, et al. Impact of anaesthesia mode on evaluation of LEEP specimen dimensions. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2017;46:339–42.
Stefanidis K, Paschopoulos M, Dusias B, et al. A randomized study of local or general anesthesia for laser conization of the cervix. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1998;261:75–8.
Hardwick JC, Kennedy JH, Deeny M. A prospective study of pain following loop excision of the transformation zone under local anaesthesia. J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;24:304–5.
Thomsen CF, Helkjaer PE, Skovdal J, et al. Acceptance of ambulatory laser conization under local anesthesia by Danish women. Ugeskr Laeger 1922;154:3590–3.
GOV.UK. Cervical screening: programme and colposcopy management - GOV.UK [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 6]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cervical-screening-programme-and-colposcopy-management .
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Colposcopy and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a beginners' manual [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 6]. Available from: https://screening.iarc.fr/colpochap.php?chap=13.php&lang=1 .
Cancer Council Australia. Cervical cancer screening | Cancer Council [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 6]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org.au/clinical-guidelines/cervical-cancer-screening/?title=Guidelines:Cervical_cancer/Screening .
Bruinsma FJ, Quinn MA. The risk of preterm birth following treatment for precancerous changes in the cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2011;118:1031–41.
Bevis KS, Biggio JR. Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:19–27.
Miyakoshi K, Itakura A, Abe T, et al. Risk of preterm birth after the excisional surgery for cervical lesions: a propensity-score matching study in Japan. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021;34:845–51.
Zhuang H, Hong S, Zheng L, et al. Effects of cervical conisation on pregnancy outcome: a meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol 2019;39:74–81.
Kristensen J, Langhoff-Roos J, Wittrup M, et al. Cervical conization and preterm delivery/low birth weight. A systematic review of the literature. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993;72:640–4.
Berretta R, Gizzo S, Dall’Asta A, et al. Risk of preterm delivery associated with prior treatment of cervical precancerous lesion according to the depth of the cone. Dis Markers 2013;35:721–6.