Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Obstetrical prognosis of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) after “coin-shaped” conization

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Uterine cervical conization is related to adverse pregnancy outcomes in subsequent pregnancies. To deal with this problem, we started conservative coin-shaped conization for reproductive-aged patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Here we report both the obstetrical and oncological impacts of this operation in comparison with the standard cone-shaped resection.

Methods

A total of 401 women 44 years old or younger were treated in our hospital by CO2 laser conization between 2003 and 2012, and subsequently 50 patients became pregnant. The patients were divided into two groups, a standard cone-shaped conization group (until 2008) and a shallow coin-shaped conization group (beginning in 2008). The pregnancy courses and oncological prognoses of these two groups were studied.

Results

Cone height reduction of about 3 mm was done. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the occurrence of oncological complications. In the standard conization group, 18 of the 25 patients delivered at term. In the coin-shaped conization group, 20 of the 25 patients delivered at term. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the occurrence of various obstetrical complications. However, the reduction rate of cervical length over the pregnancy was smaller in the coin-shaped group and the number of patients with a short cervix length of 2 cm or less was smaller in the coin-shaped group.

Conclusions

Although conservative coin-shaped conization did not markedly improve the obstetrical prognosis, this operative procedure improved the reduction rate of uterine cervical length over the pregnancy without any increase in oncological complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Govindappagari S, Schivone MB, Wright JD (2011) Cervical neoplasia. Clin Obstet Gynecol 54:528–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hamashima C, Aoki D, Miyagi E, Saito E, Nakayama T, Sagawa M, Saito H, Sobue T (2010) Japanese Research Group for Development of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines. The Japanese guideline for cervical cancer screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol 40:485–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Matsumoto K, Yoshikawa H (2013) Human papillomavirus infection and the risk of cervical cancer in Japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 39:7–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruinsma FJ, Quinn MA (2011) The risk of preterm birth following treatment for precancerous changes in the cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 118:1031–1041

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bevis K, Biggio J (2011) Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:19–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Masamoto H, Nagai Y, Inamine M, Hirakawa M, Okubo E, Ishisoko A, Sakumoto K, Aoki Y (2008) Outcome of pregnancy after laser conization: implications for infection as a casual link with preterm birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 34:838–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Takagi K, Satoh T, Multicentre Premature Labour Study Group (2009) Is long-term tocolysis effective for threatened premature labour? J Int Med Res 37:227–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yaju Y, Nakayama T (2006) Effectiveness and safety of ritodrine hydrochloride for the treatment of preterm labour: a systematic review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 15:813–822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim HJ, Kim KR, Mok JE, Nam JH, Kim YT, Kim YM, Kim JH, Yun SC (2007) Pathologic risk factors for predicting residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following LEEP conization. Gynecol Oncol 105:434–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, Exeter M, Whittaker J, McCowan L (2004) Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA 291:2100–2106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jolley JA, Wing DA (2008) Pregnancy management after cervical surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 20:528–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Leiman G, Harrison NA, Rubin A (1980) Pregnancy following conization of the cervix: complications related to cone size. Am J Obstet Gynecol 136:14–18

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Larsson G, Grundsell H, Gullberg B, Svennerud S (1982) Outcome of pregnancy after conization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 61:461–466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zeisler H, Joura EA, Bancher-Todesca D, Hanzal E, Gitsch G (1997) Prophylactic cerclage in pregnancy. Effect in women with a history of conization. J Reprod Med 42:390–392

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shin MY, Seo ES, Choi SJ, Oh SY, Kim BG, Bae DS, Kim JH, Roh CR (2010) The role of prophylactic cerclage in preventing preterm delivery after electrosurgical conization. J Gynecol Oncol 21:230–236

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Robichaux AG 3rd, Stedman CM, Hamer C (1990) Uterine activity in patients with cervical cerclage. Obstet Gynecol 76(1 Suppl):63S–66S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Charles D, Edwards WR (1981) Infectious complications of cervical cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 141:10651071

    Google Scholar 

  18. Takada S, Ishioka S, Endo T, Baba T, Morishita M, Akashi Y, Mizuuchi M, Adachi H, Kim M, Saito T (2013) Difficulty in the management of pregnancy after vaginal radical trachelectomy. Int J Clin Oncol 18:1085–1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim M, Ishioka SI, Endo T, Baba T, Akashi Y, Morishita M, Adachi H, Saito T (2014) Importance of uterine cervical cerclage to maintain a successful pregnancy for patients who undergo vaginal radical trachelectomy. Int J Clin Oncol 2014(19):906–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grimm C, Brammen L, Sliutz G, Weigert M, Sevelda P, Pils S, Reinthaller A, Polterauer S (2013) Impact of conization type on the resected cone volume: results of a retrospective multi-center study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288:1081–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van de Vijver A, Poppe W, Verguts J, Arbyn M (2010) Pregnancy outcome after cervical conisation: a retrospective cohort study in the Leuven University Hospital. BJOG 117:268–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E (2006) Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 367:489–498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu YM, Wang T, He Y, Song F, Wang Y, Zhu L, Kong WM, Duan W, Zhang WY (2014) Clinical management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in pregnant and postpartum women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289:1071–1077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Soutter WP, Haidopoulos D, Gornall RJ, McIndoe GA, Fox J, Mason WP, Flanagan A, Nicholas N, Barker F, Abrahams J, Lampert I, Sarhanis P (2001) Is conservative treatment for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix safe? BJOG 108:1184–1189

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barretta R, Gizzo S, Dall’Asta A, Mazzone E, Monica M, Franchi L, Peri F, Patrelli TS, Bacchi Modena A (2013) Risk of preterm delivery associated with prior treatment of cervical precancerous lesion according to the depth of the cone. Dis Markers 35:721–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferenczy A, Choukroun D, Falcone T, Franco E (1995) The effect of cervical loop electrosurgical excision on subsequent pregnancy outcome: north American experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172:1246–1250

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sapporo Medical University, Minami 1 jo, Nishi 16 chome, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8543, Japan

    Miseon Kim, Shinichi Ishioka, Toshiaki Endo, Tsuyoshi Baba & Tsuyoshi Saito

Authors
  1. Miseon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shinichi Ishioka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Toshiaki Endo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tsuyoshi Baba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tsuyoshi Saito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shinichi Ishioka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, M., Ishioka, S., Endo, T. et al. Obstetrical prognosis of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) after “coin-shaped” conization. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293, 651–657 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3860-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3860-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation