Conisation with radiofrequency handle: Experience at the San José Hospital

Conización con asa de radiofrecuencia: Experiencia en el Hospital de San José

With the aim of evaluating the experience of the Hospital de San José in cervical conization with radiofrequency loop, a retrospective, transversal and analytical investigation was carried out with 390 patients who underwent this procedure in our hospital between April 1998 and March 2004 The evaluated variables were: age, risk factors for cervical cancer, cytological, colposcopic and histological diagnosis of both the directed and cone biopsy, post-conization management and complications and complications. The predominant age range was from 26 to 35 years in 39% of the cases; 73% were carriers of high-grade lesions and 14% of low-grade lesions by histological diagnosis prior to the cone, 12% of the patients presented discordance in cytology - colposcopy - biopsy and 3% with suspicion of occult injury were submitted to the procedure. The histological correlation biopsy vs. Cone was 74%. In 82% the cone was sufficient, 14% of the cases presented compromised section borders, 3% positive endocervical cube and 2% curettage of the positive cone bed. 23.6% of the patients underwent complementary treatment after conization, of which 75% were taken to an enlarged abdominal hysterectomy and 5% to reconception. The frequency of complications was very low (6.7%). It was concluded that conization of the cervix with radiofrequency loop is an effective surgical technique for the diagnosis and therapy of cervical intraepithelial neoplasms.

1. Palo de G. Colposcopia y patología del tracto genital inferior. Buenos Aires: Panamericana; 1998.p.287-334.

2. Balestena J, Suarez C, Piloto M. Correlación entre el diagnóstico citológico colposcópico y biopsia dirigida con el diagnóstico histológico por conización. Hospital Universitario “Abel Santamaría” Rev. Cubana Obstet Ginecol 2003; 29 (1): 71-9

3. Bjerre B, Eliasson G, Linell F, Sodeabery H. Conization as only treatment of carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;155:143-65.

4. Cabeza E. Tratamiento del cáncer cervicouterino en las etapas tempranas. Rev Cubana Obstet Ginecol 1993;19(2):114-20.

5. Chaulet A, Esquivel E, Natan A, Seiref S, Righetti R. La conización de cuello en el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la neoplasia intraepitelial de cuello uterino en la actualidad. Obstet Ginecol Latinoam 1996;44(11-12):413-18.

6. Varela J, Egaña J. Conización por asa. Experiencia en Hospital Carlos Van Buren. Rev Chil. Obstet. Ginecol. 2002; vol. 67 (1): 3-9.

7. Amigó de Quesada M, Figueroa A, Cruz J, Salazar S. Conización con asa diatérmica, resultados de 1011 casos. Departamento de Anatomía Patológica, Instituto Nacional de Oncología y Radiobiología La Habana Cuba; nov-dic.2002. www.conganat.org

8. Parra S, Rojas A, Daste J, Urbina S. Revisión de temas y pautas de tratamiento en ginecología y obstetricia. En tomo I. Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud. Gente Nueva Editorial, Bogotá, 2001.

9. Herbst Arthur. Neoplasia del cuello Uterino. Clínicas Obstétricas y Ginecológicas2000; 327-380.

10. Apgar B, Brotzman G, Spitzer M. Colposcopia Principios y Práctica. McGraw - Hill Interamericana, 2003; 469-79

11. McLucas B, Wright Jr. T, Richart R, Prendiville W. Current Problems in Obstetrics, Gynecology and Fertility. Loop Excision of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN). Year Book 1992 jul-ago; 1992: 15 (4): 158-204.

12. Wrigt T, Gagnon S, Richart R. Treatment of cervical intraepitelial neoplasia using loop electrosugical excisión procedure. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79:173-78.

13. Osorio O, Roa E, Tisné J. Asa electoquirúrgica en la neoplasia intraepitelial de cuello uterino. Rev Chil Obstet Gynecol 1997;62(2):86-92.

14. Keijser K, Kenemans P, Zanden Van der P. et al : Diatliermy loop excision in the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis snd treatment in one procedure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 1281-7.

15. Meza Israel. Tratamiento con electrocauterización de las lesiones premalignas del cérvix. Colombia Médica 1995; 26: 119-24.

16. Bretelle F, Cravello L, Yang L, Benmoura D, Roger V, Blanc B. Conization whit positive mergins: What strategy should be adopted? Ann Chir 2000 jun;125(5): 444-9.

17. Felix JC, Muderspach Ll, Duggan BD, Roman LD. The significance of positive margins in loop electrosurgical cone biopsies. Obstet Gynecol 1994 dec; 84 (6): 996-1000.

18. Montz Fj, Holschneider CH, Thompson LD. Large-loop excision of the transformation zone: effect on the pathologic interpretation of resection margins. Obstet Gynecol 1993 Jun; 81(6): 976-82.

19. Santana E, Reyes J, Cedano V. Neoplasia intraepitelial cervical: utilidad de conización biopsia. Acta Med Domin 1999; 11(3): 82-5.

20. Focaccia GH, Nussemtrum S, Suttora GE, Plaga TJS. Evaluación de la conización diagnóstica y/o terapéutica de 24 pacientes. Obstet Ginecol Latinoam 1998;48(10/12):235-41.

21. Valero F, Nebat JM, Vidal A, Coniz A, Vidal F. Conización de cuello uterino. Estudio comparativo de los hallazgos Rev Esp Ginecol Obstet 1987; 46(319): 414-20.