El-Nashar Sherif A, Shazly Sherif A, Hopkins Matthew R, Bakkum-Gamez Jamie N, Famuyide Abimbola O
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017 Apr;21(2):129-136. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000287.
This meta-analysis compared loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) with cold-knife conization (CKC) for treating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in patients with unsatisfactory colposcopic examinations.
A literature search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception until April 2015. We included clinical trials and cohort studies comparing CKC with LEEP for treating CIN. The primary outcome was a combined end point of persistent CIN (<6 months after conization) and recurrent CIN (>6 months). Secondary outcomes included procedural, pathologic, and long-term outcomes. Pooled relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used to report binary and continuous outcomes, respectively.
Among 26 studies, the incidence of persistent and recurrent disease after LEEP was comparable with that after CKC (15.6% vs 7.38%; RR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.00-1.81). Loop electrosurgical excision procedure was faster, caused less intraoperative bleeding, and resulted in shorter hospital stay (WMD, 9.5 minutes [95% CI = 6.4-12.6 minutes]; WMD, 42.4 mL [95% CI = 21.3-106 mL]; and WMD, 1.5 days [95% CI = 1.1-1.8 days], respectively). Loop electrosurgical excision procedure cones were shallower with overall less volume and weight than CKC (WMD, 5.1 mm [95% CI = 3.2-7.1 mm]; 2.6 mm [95% CI = 0.6-5.7 mm]; and 2.6 g [95% CI = 1.4-3.7 g], respectively). During follow-up, LEEP was associated with less cervical stenosis and fewer unsatisfactory examinations; however, this was not statistically significant (RR, 0.5 [95% CI = 0.1-1.5]; RR, 0.7 [95% CI = 0.4-1.2], respectively).
Loop electrosurgical excision procedure is an acceptable alternative to CKC in women with CIN and unsatisfactory colposcopic examinations. Close follow-up is necessary for prompt detection and treatment of persistent or recurrent disease.
本荟萃分析比较了环形电切术(LEEP)与冷刀锥切术(CKC)在阴道镜检查结果不满意的患者中治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)的效果。
对MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane系统评价、CENTRAL、科学引文索引和Scopus数据库进行了从建库至2015年4月的文献检索。我们纳入了比较CKC与LEEP治疗CIN的临床试验和队列研究。主要结局是锥切术后持续CIN(<6个月)和复发性CIN(>6个月)的合并终点。次要结局包括手术、病理和长期结局。分别采用合并相对危险度(RR)和加权均数差(WMD)来报告二分类和连续性结局。
在26项研究中,LEEP术后持续性和复发性疾病的发生率与CKC术后相当(15.6%对7.38%;RR = 1.35;95%CI = 1.00 - 1.81)。环形电切术速度更快,术中出血更少,住院时间更短(WMD分别为9.5分钟[95%CI = 6.4 - 12.6分钟];WMD为42.4 mL[95%CI = 21.3 - 106 mL];WMD为1.5天[95%CI = 1.1 - 1.8天])。环形电切术的锥切标本比CKC更浅,总体积和重量更小(WMD分别为5.1 mm[95%CI = 3.2 - 7.1 mm];2.6 mm[95%CI = 0.6 - 5.7 mm];2.6 g[95%CI = 1.4 - 3.7 g])。随访期间,LEEP导致的宫颈狭窄和不满意检查较少;然而,差异无统计学意义(RR分别为0.5[95%CI = 0.1 - 1.5];RR为0.7[95%CI = 0.4 - 1.2])。
对于CIN且阴道镜检查结果不满意的女性,环形电切术是CKC的可接受替代方法。对于持续性或复发性疾病,需要密切随访以便及时发现和治疗。