Conisation with radiofrequency handle: Experience at the San José Hospital
Conización con asa de radiofrecuencia: Experiencia en el Hospital de San José
Article Sidebar
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
Main Article Content
Abstract
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.
Downloads
Article Details
References
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.