Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a randomized, prospective study.

Abstract

Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic ability and treatment efficacy of conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure with cold-knife conization. One hundred eighty women who required conization for diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia or microinvasive cervical carcinoma were prospectively enrolled in a randomized clinical trial to receive either cold-knife conization or conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Conization complications, rate of lesion clearance, and therapeutic outcome were assessed for the 2 study groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the complication rate (P = 1.00), the rate of lesion clearance (P =.18), or the rate of disease recurrence (P =.13) between the 2 study groups. The mean follow-up was 11.2 months in the cold-knife conization group and 10.4 months in the loop-excision conization group. Cold-knife conization and loop-excision conization yield similar diagnostic and therapeutic results.