Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Cold Knife Versus Carbon Dioxide for the Treatment of Preinvasive Cervical Lesion
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Cold Knife Versus Carbon Dioxide for the Treatment of Preinvasive Cervical Lesion
Do you wish to request the book?
Cold Knife Versus Carbon Dioxide for the Treatment of Preinvasive Cervical Lesion
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Cold Knife Versus Carbon Dioxide for the Treatment of Preinvasive Cervical Lesion
2024
Overview
Background and Objectives: Cervical cancer (CC) represents a significant health concern worldwide, particularly for younger women. Cold knife (CK) conization and carbon dioxide (CO2) laser conization are two techniques commonly used to remove pre-invasive lesions, offering a potential curative intent in cases of incidental diagnosis of CC. This study aimed to assess the clinical implications and pathological outcomes of CK vs. CO2 laser conization for pre-invasive lesions. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed women who underwent CO2 or CK conization for high-grade preinvasive lesions (CIN2/3, CIS and AIS) between 2010 and 2022. Patient demographics, surgical details and pathological outcomes were collected. Pregnancy outcomes, including composite adverse obstetric rates, and oncological follow-up data, were also obtained. Results: In all, 1270 women were included; of them, 1225 (96.5%) underwent CO2, and 45 (3.5%) underwent CK conization. Overall, the rate of positive endocervical or deep margins was lower with CO2 laser compared to CK (4.3% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.015). Incidental CC was diagnosed in 56 (4.4%) patients, with 35 (62.5%) squamous and 21 (46.6%) adenocarcinomas. In a multivariate regression model, the relative risk for positive endocervical or deep margins is significantly greater in cases of incidental diagnosis of CC (p < 0.01). In cases of incidental diagnosis of CC, we found that the probabilities of having either positive endocervical or deep margins after CO2 laser or CK conization are similar, with a higher risk in case of adenocarcinoma lesion. Among women with CC, 42 (75%) opted for radical treatment, while 14 (25%) underwent a follow-up. Only one woman (7.1%) in the follow-up group, who had undergone CK conization, experienced a composite adverse obstetric outcome. No recurrences were observed after a median follow-up of 53 months. Conclusions: CO2 laser conization achieved a lower positive margin rate overall. CK and CO2 conization appear to be equivalent oncological options for incidental CC.
Publisher
MDPI AG
