Publications

Detailed Information

Value of Second Pass in Loop Electrosurgical Excisional Procedure

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorKim, Kidong-
dc.contributor.authorKang, Soon-Beom-
dc.contributor.authorChung, Hyun Hoon-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Tack-Sang-
dc.contributor.authorPark, Noh-Hyun-
dc.contributor.authorSong, Yong-Sang-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Jae Weon-
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-04T04:22:04Z-
dc.date.available2012-06-04T04:22:04Z-
dc.date.issued2009-02-
dc.identifier.citationJOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE; Vol.24 1; 110-113ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn1011-8934-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/76767-
dc.description.abstractThe 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.ko_KR
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherKOREAN ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCESko_KR
dc.subjectSecond-Pass Techniqueko_KR
dc.subjectConizationko_KR
dc.subjectCervical Intraepithelial Neoplasiako_KR
dc.subjectLoop Electrosurgical Excisional Procedureko_KR
dc.subjectEndocervical Margin Involvementko_KR
dc.titleValue of Second Pass in Loop Electrosurgical Excisional Procedureko_KR
dc.typeArticleko_KR
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김기동-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor강순범-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor정현훈-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이탁-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김재원-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor박노현-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor송용상-
dc.identifier.doi10.3346/jkms.2009.24.1.110-
dc.citation.journaltitleJOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE-
dc.description.citedreferenceTillmanns TD, 2006, GYNECOL ONCOL, V100, P379, DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.09.015-
dc.description.citedreferenceGonzalez DI, 2001, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V184, P315-
dc.description.citedreferenceCosta S, 2000, ACTA OBSTET GYN SCAN, V79, P586-
dc.description.citedreferenceZaitoun AM, 2000, J CLIN PATHOL, V53, P191-
dc.description.citedreferenceHILLEMANNS P, 2000, ZENTRALBL GYNAKOL, V122, P35-
dc.description.citedreferenceHanau CA, 1997, ACTA CYTOL, V41, P731-
dc.description.citedreferenceGold M, 1996, GYNECOL ONCOL, V61, P241-
dc.description.citedreferenceKOBAK WH, 1995, OBSTET GYNECOL, V85, P197-
dc.description.citedreferenceMURDOCH JB, 1992, INT J GYNECOL CANCER, V2, P129-
dc.description.citedreferenceKEIJSER KGG, 1992, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V166, P1281-
dc.description.citedreferenceVERGOTE IB, 1992, GYNECOL ONCOL, V44, P235-
dc.description.citedreferenceBAGGISH MS, 1991, J GYNECOL SURG, V7, P83-
dc.description.tc0-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share