References
- Acharya G, Kjeldberg I, Hansen SM, et al (2005). Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 272, 109-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-005-0727-1
- Alvarez RD, Helm CW, Edwards RP, et al (1994). Prospective randomized trial of LLETZ versus laser ablation in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol, 52, 175-9. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1027
- Ayhan A, Boynukalin FK, Guven S, et al (2009). Repeat LEEP conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and positive ectocervicalmargins. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 105, 14-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.11.015
- Bevis KS, Biggio JR (2011). Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 205, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.003
- Dey P, Gibbs A, Arnold DF, et al (2002). Loop diathermy excision compared with cervical laservaporisation for the treatment of intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG, 109, 381-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01277.x
- Giacalone PL, Laffargue F, Aligier N, et al (1999). Randomized study comparing two techniques of conization: cold knife versus loop excision. Gynecol Oncol, 75, 356-60. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1999.5626
- Kietpeerakool C, Khunamornpong S, Srisomboon J, et al (2007). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II-III with endocervical cone margin involvement after cervical loop conization: is there any predictor for residual disease? J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 33, 660-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00628.x
- Kir G, Karabulut MH, Topal CS, et al (2012).Endocervical glandular involvement, positive endocervical surgical margin and multicentricity are more often associated with high-grade than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 38, 1206-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2012.01847.x
- Lodi CT, Michelin MA, Lima MI, et al (2011). Factors associated with recurrence of cervical intraepithelialneoplasia after conization in HIV-infected and noninfected women. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 284, 191-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1611-1
- Luesley D, Leeson S (2004). Guidelines for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. 1st ed. Sheffield, UK: NHSCSP2004.
- Mathevet P, Chemali E, Roy M, et al (2003). Long-term outcome of a randomized study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 106, 214-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00245-2
- Mathevet P, Dargent D, Roy M, et al (1994). A randomized prospective study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Gynecol Oncol, 54, 175-9. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1189
- Pecorelli S (2009). Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 105, 103-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012
- Prendiville W, Cullimore J, Norman S (1989). Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ).A new method of management for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 96, 1054-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03380.x
- Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, et al (2004). Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA, 291, 2100-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.17.2100
- Shin JW, Rho HS, Park CY (2009). Factors influencing the choice between cold knife conization and loop electrosurgical excisional procedure for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 35, 126-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00834.x
- Sjoborg KD, Vistad I, Myhr SS, et al (2007). Pregnancy outcome after cervical cone excision: a case-control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 86, 423-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038120701208158
- Reich O, Pickel H, Lahousen M, et al (2001). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III: long-term outcome after coldknife conization with clear margins. Obstet Gynecol, 97, 428-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(00)01174-1
- Wright TC Jr, Richart RM, Ferenczy A, et al (1992). Comparison of specimens removed by CO2 laser conization and the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Obstet Gynecol, 79, 147-53.
- Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al (2007).2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical screening tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis, 11, 201-22. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e3181585870
- Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al (2007).2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. J Low Genit Tract Dis, 11, 223-39. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e318159408b
Cited by
- Comparison of Recurrence Rates with Contour-Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (C-LETZ) and Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ) for CIN vol.15, pp.15, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.15.6005
- Application of HPV DNA Testing in Follow-up after Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedures in Northern Thailand vol.16, pp.14, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.14.6093
- Triage for management of cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion patients with positive margin by conization: a retrospective analysis vol.11, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-017-0517-8
- Low recurrence rate of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after successful excision and routine colposcopy during follow-up vol.97, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009719