Kiuchi K, Hasegawa K, Motegi E, Kosaka N, Udagawa Y, Fukasawa I
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2016;37(6):803-808.
Purpose ofinvestigation: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the results and complications of laser conization and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), performed for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or microinvasive carcinoma, between postmenopausal and premenopausal patients.
This study recruited a total of 551 patients. In the laser group (n = 405), there were 361 (89.1%) premenopausal and 44 (10.9%) postmenopausal women. In the LEEP group (n = 146), there were 129 (88.4%) premenopausal and 17 (11.6%) postmenopausal women. The factors investigated in both groups were the length of the tissue cone removed and the presence of positive endocervical cone margins, residual disease, and cervical stenosis.
In the laser group, the length of the tissue cone was significantly longer in postmenopausal patients (17.9 ±3.9 mm vs. 15.7 ± 3.6mm; p = 0.002). The rate of positive endocervical margins was significantly higher in premenopausal patients (9.1% vs. 0%; p = 0.037). The rate of cervical stenosis was significantly higher in postmenopausal patients (59.1% vs. 8.3%; p < 0.0001). In the LEEP group, there were no differences in the length of the tissue cone (premenopausal, 11.7 ± 1.9 mm vs. postmenopausal, 11.4 ± 2.7 mm; p = 0.12), the rate of positive endocervical margins (24.0% vs. 17.6%), or the rate of residual disease (13.2% vs. 17.6%). The rate of cervical stenosis was significantly higher in postmenopausal patients (23.5% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.002); however this rate was significantly lower than that seen in the laser group.
In postmenopausal patients, the rates of positive endocervical cone margins and of residual disease were higher in the LEEP group; however, the rate of cervical stenosis was higher in the laser group. Physicians should be aware of the characteristics of the devices used for cervical conization in postmenopausal women with CIN.
研究目的:本回顾性研究旨在比较绝经后和绝经前患者因宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)或微浸润癌接受激光锥切术和环形电切术(LEEP)的结果及并发症。
本研究共纳入551例患者。激光组(n = 405)中,绝经前女性361例(89.1%),绝经后女性44例(10.9%)。LEEP组(n = 146)中,绝经前女性129例(88.4%),绝经后女性17例(11.6%)。两组均调查的因素包括切除的组织锥长度、宫颈锥切边缘阳性、残留疾病及宫颈狭窄情况。
激光组中,绝经后患者切除的组织锥长度显著更长(17.9±3.9mm对15.7±3.6mm;p = 0.002)。绝经前患者宫颈边缘阳性率显著更高(9.1%对0%;p = 0.037)。绝经后患者宫颈狭窄率显著更高(59.1%对8.3%;p < 0.0001)。LEEP组中,组织锥长度无差异(绝经前11.7±1.9mm对绝经后11.4±2.7mm;p = 0.12),宫颈边缘阳性率无差异(24.0%对17.6%),残留疾病率无差异(13.2%对17.6%)。绝经后患者宫颈狭窄率显著更高(23.5%对4.1%;p = 0.002);然而该比率显著低于激光组。
在绝经后患者中,LEEP组宫颈锥切边缘阳性率和残留疾病率更高;然而,激光组宫颈狭窄率更高。医生应了解患有CIN的绝经后女性宫颈锥切所用器械的特点。