2007
DOI: 10.1080/00016340701505267
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

‘See and treat’ regime by LEEP conisation is a safe and time saving procedure among women with cytological high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion

Abstract: An immediate colposcopically-guided LEEP conisation after HSIL Pap smear may be a safe and time saving strategy. Positive cone margins are a risk factor for residual/recurrent disease.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

1
18
1
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
18
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Our S&T patients verbally stated that they felt relieved that the problem tissues were removed from their bodies in a timely manner. Kjellberg et al (2007) describe in his literature that both of these methods (cytology and cervical directed biopsy) yielded almost the same detection rate (78.5 vs. 73.2%). The question arises if cervical biopsy is still needed to confirm the Pap smear result or can we skip the biopsy and go on with see and treat strategy (Kjellberg et al, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our S&T patients verbally stated that they felt relieved that the problem tissues were removed from their bodies in a timely manner. Kjellberg et al (2007) describe in his literature that both of these methods (cytology and cervical directed biopsy) yielded almost the same detection rate (78.5 vs. 73.2%). The question arises if cervical biopsy is still needed to confirm the Pap smear result or can we skip the biopsy and go on with see and treat strategy (Kjellberg et al, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Kjellberg et al (2007) describe in his literature that both of these methods (cytology and cervical directed biopsy) yielded almost the same detection rate (78.5 vs. 73.2%). The question arises if cervical biopsy is still needed to confirm the Pap smear result or can we skip the biopsy and go on with see and treat strategy (Kjellberg et al, 2007). A total of 75 percents of our patients with HSIL or higher on Pap smear had a corresponding diagnosis at LEEP specimen.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…El porcentaje de curación, citología y colposcopia normales, con un promedio de 18 meses de seguimiento, en mujeres con LIE de alto grado fue de 85,5%, similar a lo reportado internacional (11,16,17) y nacionalmente (17). Este buen resultado estaría relacionado con la alta frecuencia de erradicación del virus papiloma humano (HPV) después del procedimiento electro quirúrgico (18).…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…11,12 Problems with negative side effects, such as adverse pregnancy outcome, 13 due to overtreatment have favoured a less invasive strategy for further assessment and a more conservative strategy for treatment, whereas the concern of missing severe disease has favoured a more invasive approach, and even diagnostic excisions/ conisations. 9,14 During the last decade, LLETZ has increasingly replaced laser conisation as excisional therapy in Sweden, mostly because of its easy use.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5,6 Out of all vaginal cytology in Sweden 1.7% has been reported as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), 1.4% as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade one (CIN1), 0.9% as CIN2-3, 0.3% as atypia in cells of uncertain origin, and 0.2% as glandular cell atypia and adenocarcinoma/adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). 8 The major differences in management concern (i) cytological surveillance versus colposcopy and biopsy in low-grade abnormalities, (ii) further investigation by punch biopsies and/or endocervical curettage before treatment versus ''see and treat'', 9,10 (iii) the use of colposcopy versus no use when taking biopsies, and (iv) treatment with excisional methods [cold knife conisation, laser conisation and large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ)], versus ablative methods (laser ablation, cryotherapy and diathermy). 11,12 Problems with negative side effects, such as adverse pregnancy outcome, 13 due to overtreatment have favoured a less invasive strategy for further assessment and a more conservative strategy for treatment, whereas the concern of missing severe disease has favoured a more invasive approach, and even diagnostic excisions/ conisations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%