Deep loop excision for prehysterectomy endocervical evaluation.
prospective_cohort · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 9024094.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Our purpose was to determine whether office deep loop excision should replace cone biopsy for frozen-section endocervical evaluation before planned hysterectomy. This cohort study comprised 31 patients who underwent office deep loop excision with frozen-section analysis followed by hysterectomy and 50 historic controls who underwent cone biopsy with frozen-section analysis followed by hysterectomy. Diagnostic accuracy, margin status, presence of residual disease, morbidity, and cost were compared. Loop excision frozen sections had sensitivity (ectocervical specimen, 96%; deepest endocervical specimen, 93%), specificity (100%, 86%), and positive (100%, 88%) and negative (75%, 92%) predictive values similar to those of frozen cone biopsy (95%, 80%, 98%, and 67%, respectively. No differences in margin status, presence of residual dysplasia, or morbidity were observed. The shorter operating room time for vaginal hysterectomy after loop excision (p < 0.01) resulted in an approximate $2000 savings. Office loop excision is a cost-effective option for endocervical evaluation before planned hysterectomy.
Medical subject headings
- Biopsy
- Hysterectomy