Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Punch Biopsy and Loop Biopsy for the Management of Severe Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The study was undertaken for comparing the colposcopy directed punch versus loop excision biopsy technique in order to get the most précised sample for study as well as comparing the complications associated with them.

Materials and Methods

The prospective clinical study was conducted on 50 women of age group 20–80 years. Women who were found to have a Reid colposcopic index of high grade disease, low grade disease or invasive disease recognized as the patients needed biopsy. They were randomly divided into either the punch biopsy forceps group (PB group) or the round loop electrode group (LE group).

Result

The quality of tissue of the LE group was found significantly better than the tissue quality of PB group based on the size, site and tissue damaged measures. Both the groups were found to have the same cytology report as well as colposcopic diagnosis and histology reports. Mild degree of bleeding has been reported as a frequent complication in LEEP and punch biopsy. The VAS pain score associated in each procedure was found to be 2.4 and 2.8, respectively, in both groups with no significant difference.

Conclusion

The present study has concluded that the quality of tissue from the LEEP biopsy electrode was better than the punch biopsy forceps with no difference in the pain score, and it could be suggested that use of the round loop electrode in CDB provides good quality tissue to evaluate the histology.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;18:337.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;367:489–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson MC. Invasive carcinoma of the cervix following local destructive treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;100(7):657–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Shumsky AG, Stuart GC, Nation J. Carcinoma of the cervix following conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;53(1):50–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ouitrakul S, Udomthavornsuk B, Chumworathayi B, et al. Accuracy of colposcopically directed biopsy in diagnosis of cervical pathology at Srinagarind Hospital. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(9):2451–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bulten J, Horvat R, Jordan J, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical histopathology. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(5):611–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fu YS. Pathology of the uterine cervix, vagina and vulva. Major Probl Pathol. 1989;21:71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schlosshauer PW, Chen W, Chanderdatt D, Antonio LB. Monsel’s artifact in gynecologic biopsies: a simple remedy. J Histotechnol. 2005;28(3):161–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huh WK, Sideri M, Stoler M, et al. Relevance of random biopsy at the transformation zone when colposcopy is negative. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(4):670–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Myriokefalitaki E, Redman CW, Potdar N, et al. The use of the colposcopically directed punch biopsy in clinical practice: a survey of British Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (BSCCP)-accredited colposcopists. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2016;20(3):234–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Prendiville W. Large loop excision of the transformation zone. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995;38(3):622–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Haefeli M, Elfering A. Pain assessment. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(1):S17-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pfaendler KS, Mwanahamuntu MH, Sahasrabuddhe VV, et al. Management of cryotherapy-ineligible women in a “screen-and-treat” cervical cancer prevention program targeting HIV-infected women in Zambia: lessons from the field. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110(3):402–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mukhopadhyay S. A demographic and clinico pathological study of HPV associated cofactors in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer. Indian J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2019;6(4):472–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vasundhara N, Hindumati M, Mahapatra M, Mani CR. Opportunistic colposcopic evaluation of cervical lesions for detecting early malignancy. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2019;9(5):p8933.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kahramanoglu I, Demirkiran F, Turan H, et al. The use of colposcopic punch biopsy in the management of abnormal cervical cytology: a 5–year retrospective audit. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;39(1):110–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ioffe OB, Brooks SE, De Rezende RB, Silverberg SG. Artifact in cervical LLETZ specimens: correlation with follow-up. Int J Gynecol Pathol: Offl J Int Soc Gynecol Pathol. 1999;18(2):115–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Arora R, Malik A, Zutshi V, Bachani S. Comparison of cervical biopsy using punch biopsy forceps versus loop electrode. Int J Clin Biomed Res. 2018;30:6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wright TC Jr, Richart RM. Loop excision of the uterine cervix. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1995;7(1):30–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Petry KU, Glaubitz M, Maschek H, et al. Electrosurgical loop excision of the transformation zone in treatment of cervix neoplasia. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1996;56(10):513–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Chirenje ZM, Rusakaniko S, Kirumbi L, et al. Situation analysis for cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment in east, central and southern African countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:127–32.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge the contribution of Jeevan Jyoti Hospital in the accomplishment of this research as it is based on the patients coming in OPD of Jeevan Jyoti Hospital Allahabad.

Funding

No funding Availed. The research is based on the patients coming in OPD of Jeevan Jyoti Hospital Allahabad.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Allahabad, India

    Anjula Sahai & Vandana Bansal

  2. Centre of Food Technology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, India

    Priyanka Singh

Authors
  1. Anjula Sahai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vandana Bansal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Priyanka Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anjula Sahai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest among the authors.

Consent for publication

The consent has been taken from the patients coming in OPD of Jeevan Jyoti Hospital Allahabad.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Anjula Sahai is a consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist in one of the leading private hospital Jeevan Jyoti Hospital at Allahabad, India; Dr.Vandana Bansal, M.B.B.S, MS, FCGP, FICOG, D.Phil in IVF (Gold Medalist) Jeevan Jyoti Hospital & Infertility Research Centre; Priyanka Singh, Doctor of philosophy from centre of food technology, University of Allahabad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sahai, A., Bansal, V. & Singh, P. Comparison of Punch Biopsy and Loop Biopsy for the Management of Severe Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN). J Obstet Gynecol India 72 (Suppl 1), 248–254 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-021-01525-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-021-01525-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation