The use of loop electrosurgical conization (LEC) for the treatment of large high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) is often associated with a difficult procedure that results in accidental sample fragmentation, thermal damage and sometimes the presence of positive margins. This study aims to compare LEC that removes the cervical cone in two blocks (anterior and posterior cervical lips – LEC2) with LEC performed with one pass of the loop (LEC1). In a randomized, controlled trial, patients that needed conization due to high-grade CIN were assigned to one of the techniques. There were no differences in terms of age, cone histopathological diagnosis, blood loss, vaginal injuries, stenosis of the cervical os and specimen artifacts. LEC2 required less hemostatic sutures. LEC2 showed no specimen fragmentation, while LEC1 did (0 vs. 5.9%; p = 0.10). As expected, LEC2 samples were heavier (p = 0.01), included a larger ectocervical area (p = 0.001) and, therefore, had a greater volume (p < 0.001) compared to LEC1 samples. The height of the LEC2 specimens was smaller than that of LEC1 specimens (p < 0.001). LEC2 yielded fewer cases of positive margins (12.7%) than LEC1 (33.3%; p = 0.021). We conclude that the LEC2 technique is an effective treatment choice: it is safe for the patient, with better outcomes regarding sample quality than LEC1. Further studies are encouraged regarding this procedure.

This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.