Pregnancy and delivery after cone biopsy of the cervix
- 46 Downloads
Seventy-seven women had 98 pregnancies after a cone biopsy of the cervix. There were 62 deliveries, 26 legal abortions, 9 spontaneous abortions and 1 ectopic pregnancy. Cervical cerclage was done for 22 out of 62 conized parturients (35.4%) and for none in the matched control group. There were 4 (6.4%) preterm deliveries in the cone biopsy group and 1 in the control group. The perinatal mortalities were 3.2% and 0% respectively. The mean duration of labour was 2.4 h shorter in the conized parturients than in the controls (P < 0.05) but there were no difference in the mode of delivery in the two groups.
KeywordsPregnancy Delivery Conization CIN Cervical cerclage
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Grönroos M, Liukko P, Kilkku P, Punnonen R (1979) Pregnancy and delivery after conization of the cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 58: 477Google Scholar
- 2.Hemminki K, Niemi M-L, Saloniemi I, Vainio H, Hemminki E (1980) Spontaneous abortions by occupation and social class in Finland. Int J Epidemiol 9: 149Google Scholar
- 3.Jones JM, Sweetman P, Hibbard BM (1979) The outcome of pregnancy after cone biopsy of the cervix: A case-control study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 86: 913Google Scholar
- 4.Karjalainen O, Aito M, Timonen S (1974) Sequalae of combined amputation and conization of the cervix. Ann Chir Gynaecol Fenn 63: 160Google Scholar
- 5.Kullander S, Sjöberg NO (1971) Treatment of carcinoma in situ of the cervix uteri by conization. Acta Obstet Gynacol Scand 50: 153Google Scholar
- 6.Leiman G, Harrison NA, Rubin A (1980) Pregnancy following conization of the cervix: complications related to cone size. Am J Obstet Gynecol 136: 14Google Scholar
- 7.Macvicar J, Willocks J (1968) The effect of diathermy conization of the cervix on subsequent fertility, pregnancy and delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Br. Commonw 75: 355Google Scholar
- 8.Weber T, Obel E (1979) Pregnancy complications following conization of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 58: 347Google Scholar