Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: A randomized, prospective study
Objective: Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic ability and treatment efficacy of conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure with cold-knife conization. Study Design: One hundred eighty women who required conization for diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia or microinvasi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1999-02, Vol.180 (2), p.276-282 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 282 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 276 |
| container_title | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology |
| container_volume | 180 |
| creator | Duggan, Bridgette D. Felix, Juan C. Muderspach, Laila I. Gebhardt, Judith A. Groshen, Susan Morrow, C.Paul Roman, Lynda D. |
| description | Objective: Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic ability and treatment efficacy of conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure with cold-knife conization.
Study Design: One hundred eighty women who required conization for diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia or microinvasive cervical carcinoma were prospectively enrolled in a randomized clinical trial to receive either cold-knife conization or conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Conization complications, rate of lesion clearance, and therapeutic outcome were assessed for the 2 study groups.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the complication rate (
P = 1.00), the rate of lesion clearance (
P = .18), or the rate of disease recurrence (
P = .13) between the 2 study groups. The mean follow-up was 11.2 months in the cold-knife conization group and 10.4 months in the loop-excision conization group.
Conclusion: Cold-knife conization and loop-excision conization yield similar diagnostic and therapeutic results. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:276-82.) |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70200-0 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69576770</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002937899702000</els_id><sourcerecordid>69576770</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-321123c1e659f900b6a2d293b292f9f48b9816dae43e61a70d7f53d683541c673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEuLFDEUhYMoYzv6EwayEFGwNI-uJNeNDI0vGHChrkMquaXR6kqbVLX2_HpT083ozlVIzjn3nnyEXHD2gjOuXn5ijIkGpDZPAZ5pJhhr2B2y4gx0o4wyd8nq1nKfPCjl-3IVIM7IGYAx2ugV-bVJQ2h-jLFH6tMYr90U00j3mMtc_n3pDnT6hnRIaUdxQD_lVOb8NXo3UPztY1lMu5w8hjnjK3pJsxtD2sZrDM8XoexqKO6RlmkOh4fkXu-Ggo9O5zn58vbN58375urjuw-by6vGSwNTIwXnQnqOqoUeGOuUE0GA7Oo3eujXpgPDVXC4lqi40yzovpVBGdmuuVdanpMnx7m1wc8Zy2S3sXgcBjdimotV0GqlNavG9mj0tWrJ2NtdjluXD5YzuwC3N8DtQtMC2BvgdsldnBbM3RbDbepEuOqPT7orlVVfqVRYf4fXqgpEtb0-2rDC2EfMtviIY6UZc-VmQ4r_KfIHECKelg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69576770</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: A randomized, prospective study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Duggan, Bridgette D. ; Felix, Juan C. ; Muderspach, Laila I. ; Gebhardt, Judith A. ; Groshen, Susan ; Morrow, C.Paul ; Roman, Lynda D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Duggan, Bridgette D. ; Felix, Juan C. ; Muderspach, Laila I. ; Gebhardt, Judith A. ; Groshen, Susan ; Morrow, C.Paul ; Roman, Lynda D.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic ability and treatment efficacy of conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure with cold-knife conization.
Study Design: One hundred eighty women who required conization for diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia or microinvasive cervical carcinoma were prospectively enrolled in a randomized clinical trial to receive either cold-knife conization or conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Conization complications, rate of lesion clearance, and therapeutic outcome were assessed for the 2 study groups.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the complication rate (
P = 1.00), the rate of lesion clearance (
P = .18), or the rate of disease recurrence (
P = .13) between the 2 study groups. The mean follow-up was 11.2 months in the cold-knife conization group and 10.4 months in the loop-excision conization group.
Conclusion: Cold-knife conization and loop-excision conization yield similar diagnostic and therapeutic results. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:276-82.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70200-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9988787</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJOGAH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia, PA: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Adenocarcinoma - diagnosis ; Adenocarcinoma - surgery ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biopsy ; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis ; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - surgery ; Cold-knife conization ; Conization - methods ; conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure ; Electrosurgery ; Female ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Postoperative Complications ; Prospective Studies ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - surgery</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1999-02, Vol.180 (2), p.276-282</ispartof><rights>1999 Mosby, Inc.</rights><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-321123c1e659f900b6a2d293b292f9f48b9816dae43e61a70d7f53d683541c673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-321123c1e659f900b6a2d293b292f9f48b9816dae43e61a70d7f53d683541c673</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937899702000$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1683692$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9988787$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Duggan, Bridgette D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felix, Juan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muderspach, Laila I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gebhardt, Judith A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groshen, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrow, C.Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roman, Lynda D.</creatorcontrib><title>Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: A randomized, prospective study</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Objective: Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic ability and treatment efficacy of conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure with cold-knife conization.
Study Design: One hundred eighty women who required conization for diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia or microinvasive cervical carcinoma were prospectively enrolled in a randomized clinical trial to receive either cold-knife conization or conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Conization complications, rate of lesion clearance, and therapeutic outcome were assessed for the 2 study groups.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the complication rate (
P = 1.00), the rate of lesion clearance (
P = .18), or the rate of disease recurrence (
P = .13) between the 2 study groups. The mean follow-up was 11.2 months in the cold-knife conization group and 10.4 months in the loop-excision conization group.
Conclusion: Cold-knife conization and loop-excision conization yield similar diagnostic and therapeutic results. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:276-82.)</description><subject>Adenocarcinoma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Adenocarcinoma - surgery</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - surgery</subject><subject>Cold-knife conization</subject><subject>Conization - methods</subject><subject>conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure</subject><subject>Electrosurgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - surgery</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEuLFDEUhYMoYzv6EwayEFGwNI-uJNeNDI0vGHChrkMquaXR6kqbVLX2_HpT083ozlVIzjn3nnyEXHD2gjOuXn5ijIkGpDZPAZ5pJhhr2B2y4gx0o4wyd8nq1nKfPCjl-3IVIM7IGYAx2ugV-bVJQ2h-jLFH6tMYr90U00j3mMtc_n3pDnT6hnRIaUdxQD_lVOb8NXo3UPztY1lMu5w8hjnjK3pJsxtD2sZrDM8XoexqKO6RlmkOh4fkXu-Ggo9O5zn58vbN58375urjuw-by6vGSwNTIwXnQnqOqoUeGOuUE0GA7Oo3eujXpgPDVXC4lqi40yzovpVBGdmuuVdanpMnx7m1wc8Zy2S3sXgcBjdimotV0GqlNavG9mj0tWrJ2NtdjluXD5YzuwC3N8DtQtMC2BvgdsldnBbM3RbDbepEuOqPT7orlVVfqVRYf4fXqgpEtb0-2rDC2EfMtviIY6UZc-VmQ4r_KfIHECKelg</recordid><startdate>19990201</startdate><enddate>19990201</enddate><creator>Duggan, Bridgette D.</creator><creator>Felix, Juan C.</creator><creator>Muderspach, Laila I.</creator><creator>Gebhardt, Judith A.</creator><creator>Groshen, Susan</creator><creator>Morrow, C.Paul</creator><creator>Roman, Lynda D.</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990201</creationdate><title>Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: A randomized, prospective study</title><author>Duggan, Bridgette D. ; Felix, Juan C. ; Muderspach, Laila I. ; Gebhardt, Judith A. ; Groshen, Susan ; Morrow, C.Paul ; Roman, Lynda D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-321123c1e659f900b6a2d293b292f9f48b9816dae43e61a70d7f53d683541c673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Adenocarcinoma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Adenocarcinoma - surgery</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - surgery</topic><topic>Cold-knife conization</topic><topic>Conization - methods</topic><topic>conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure</topic><topic>Electrosurgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Duggan, Bridgette D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felix, Juan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muderspach, Laila I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gebhardt, Judith A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groshen, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrow, C.Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roman, Lynda D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Duggan, Bridgette D.</au><au>Felix, Juan C.</au><au>Muderspach, Laila I.</au><au>Gebhardt, Judith A.</au><au>Groshen, Susan</au><au>Morrow, C.Paul</au><au>Roman, Lynda D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: A randomized, prospective study</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>1999-02-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>180</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>276</spage><epage>282</epage><pages>276-282</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><coden>AJOGAH</coden><abstract>Objective: Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic ability and treatment efficacy of conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure with cold-knife conization.
Study Design: One hundred eighty women who required conization for diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia or microinvasive cervical carcinoma were prospectively enrolled in a randomized clinical trial to receive either cold-knife conization or conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Conization complications, rate of lesion clearance, and therapeutic outcome were assessed for the 2 study groups.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the complication rate (
P = 1.00), the rate of lesion clearance (
P = .18), or the rate of disease recurrence (
P = .13) between the 2 study groups. The mean follow-up was 11.2 months in the cold-knife conization group and 10.4 months in the loop-excision conization group.
Conclusion: Cold-knife conization and loop-excision conization yield similar diagnostic and therapeutic results. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:276-82.)</abstract><cop>Philadelphia, PA</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>9988787</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70200-0</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0002-9378 |
| ispartof | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1999-02, Vol.180 (2), p.276-282 |
| issn | 0002-9378 1097-6868 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69576770 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Adenocarcinoma - diagnosis Adenocarcinoma - surgery Biological and medical sciences Biopsy Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - surgery Cold-knife conization Conization - methods conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure Electrosurgery Female Humans Medical sciences Neoplasm Recurrence, Local Postoperative Complications Prospective Studies Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - surgery |
| title | Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: A randomized, prospective study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T21%3A10%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cold-knife%20conization%20versus%20conization%20by%20the%20loop%20electrosurgical%20excision%20procedure:%20A%20randomized,%20prospective%20study&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Duggan,%20Bridgette%20D.&rft.date=1999-02-01&rft.volume=180&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=276&rft.epage=282&rft.pages=276-282&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft.coden=AJOGAH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70200-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69576770%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69576770&rft_id=info:pmid/9988787&rft_els_id=S0002937899702000&rfr_iscdi=true |