J Korean Med Sci.  2009 Feb;24(1):110-113. 10.3346/jkms.2009.24.1.110.

Value of Second Pass in Loop Electrosurgical Excisional Procedure

• Kim K
• Kang SB
• Chung HH
• Lee TS
• Kim JW
• Park NH
• Song YS

• KMID: 1794415
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2009.24.1.110

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the rate of incomplete resection and treatment outcome of the second-pass technique with those of single-pass technique in loop electrosurgical excisional procedure (LEEP). From 1997 to 2002, 683 women were diagnosed as squamous dysplasia via LEEP in our institution. Age, parity, LEEP technique, grade of lesion, glandular extension, margin status, residual tumor and recurrence were obtained by reviewing medical records. Positive margin was defined as mild dysplasia or higher grade lesions at resection margin of the LEEP specimen. In women who underwent hysterectomy, residual tumor was defined as mild dysplasia or higher grade lesions in hysterectomy specimen. In women who did not underwent hysterectomy, Pap smear more than atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or biopsy result more than mild dysplasia within two years after LEEP were regarded as cytologic or histologic recurrences, respectively. Treatment failure of LEEP was defined as residual tumor or histologic recurrence. The second-pass technique significantly reduced the endocervical margin positivity (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.63). However, the second-pass technique did not reduce the treatment failure (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.29-1.32). In conclusion, the second-pass technique markedly reduced the endocervical margin positivity, but did not reduce the treatment failure rate of LEEP.

Keyword

Second-Pass Technique; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia; Loop Electrosurgical Excisional Procedure; Endocervical Margin Involvement; Conization

MeSH Terms

Adult
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia/pathology/*surgery
Electrosurgery/*methods
Female
Humans
Hysterectomy
Medical Records
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/diagnosis/epidemiology
Neoplasm, Residual/diagnosis/epidemiology
Odds Ratio
Recurrence
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Severity of Illness Index
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/pathology/*surgery

Reference

1. Tillmanns TD, Falkner CA, Engle DB, Wan JY, Mannel RS, Walker JL, Johnson GA, McMeekin DS, Zuna R, Gold MA. Preoperative predictors of positive margins after loop electrosurgical excisional procedure-Cone. Gynecol Oncol. 2006. 100:379–384.

2. Baggish MS, Noel Y, Brooks M. Electrosurgical thin loop conization by selective double excision. J Gynecol Surg. 1991. 7:83–86.

3. Keijser KG, Kenemans P, van der Zanden PH, Schijf CP, Vooijs GP, Rolland R. Diathermy loop excision in the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: diagnosis and treatment in one procedure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992. 166:1281–1287.

4. Murdoch JB, Grimshaw RN, Morgan PR, Monaghan JM. The impact of loop diathermy on management of early invasive cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1992. 2:129–133.

5. Vergote IB, Makar AP, Kjorstad KE. Laser excision of the transformation zone as treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with satisfactory colposcopy. Gynecol Oncol. 1992. 44:235–239.

6. Gold M, Dunton CJ, Murray J, Macones G, Hanau C, Carlson JA Jr. Loop electrocautery excisional procedure: therapeutic effectiveness as an ablation and a conization equivalent. Gynecol Oncol. 1996. 61:241–244.

7. Gonzalez DI Jr, Zahn CM, Retzloff MG, Moore WF, Kost ER, Snyder RR. Recurrence of dysplasia after loop electrosurgical excision procedures with long-term follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001. 184:315–321.

8. Hillemanns P, Kimmig R, Dannecker C, Noorzai T, Diebold J, Thaler CJ, Hepp H. LEEP versus cold knife conization for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasias. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2000. 122:35–42.

9. Costa S, De Nuzzo M, Terzano P, Santini D, De Simone P, Bovicelli A, Bovicelli L, Bucchi L. Factors associated with cone margin involvement in CIN patients undergoing conization-equivalent electrosurgical procedure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000. 79:586–592.

10. Hanau CA, Bibbo M. The case for cytologic follow-up after LEEP. Acta Cytol. 1997. 41:731–736.

11. Kobak WH, Roman LD, Felix JC, Muderspach LI, Schlaerth JB, Morrow CP. The role of endocervical curettage at cervical conization for high-grade dysplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 1995. 85:197–201.

12. Zaitoun AM, McKee G, Coppen MJ, Thomas SM, Wilson PO. Completeness of excision and follow up cytology in patients treated with loop excision biopsy. J Clin Pathol. 2000. 53:191–196.