Which is an adequate size of cone?

Česká verzia

Authors: Pavel Freitag
Authors place of work: Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN, Praha
Published in the journal: Prakt Gyn 2016; 20(1): 12-14
Category: Oncogynecology: Review Article

Summary

Dimensions of cone – length, thickness and circumference – have to be presented according recommendations of International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy from the year 2011. In a clinical series of 27 conizations due to carcinoma in situ the size of cone, fragmentation of the specimen, thermic artefacts, inflammatory changes and range to margins were evaluated. Requirements for adequate performing of the procedure are discussed. The size of cone is always individual and has to be directed according the type of transformation zone, size of lesion, size and shape of the cervix, histological type of lesion and possible reproductive plans.

Key words:
conization – size of cone

Zdroje

1. Sláma J. Prekancerózy děložního hrdla. In: Cibula D, Petruželka L a kol. Onkogynekologie. Grada: Praha 2009: 315–342. ISBN 978–80–247–2665–6.

2. Bornstein J, Bentley J, Bösze P et al. 2011 Colposcopic terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120(1): 166–172.

3. Russomano F, Tristao MA, Côrtes R et al. A comparison between type 3 excision of the transformation zone by straight wire excision of the transformation zone (SWETZ) and large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ): a randomized study. BMC Womens Health 2015; 15:12. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905–015–0174–5>.

4. Martin-Hirsch PP, Paraskevaidis E, Bryant A et al. Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 12: CD001318. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001318.pub3>.

5. Grimm C, Brammen L, Sliutz G et al. Impact of conization type on the resected cone volume: results of a retrospective multi-center study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 288(5): 1081–1086. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404–013–2873–1>.

6. Papoutsis D, Rodolakis A, Mesogitis S et al. Appropriate cone dimensions to achieve negative excision margins after large loop excision of transformation zone in the uterine cervix for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013; 75(3): 163–168. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000345864>.

7. Liverani CA, Di Giuseppe J, Clemente N et al. Length but not transverse diameter of the excision specimen for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2–3) is a predictor of pregnancy outcome. Eur J Cancer Prev 2015; Aug 27 (8). Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000196>.

8. Nicolas F, Robert AL, Lavoué V et al. Ultrasound evaluation of cervical regeneration after LLETZ for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a prospective observational study. Anticancer Res 2014; 34(7): 3799–3805.