title: Treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with the CO2 laser: laser versus cryotherapy. A review of effectiveness and cost.
abstract: In the treatment of CIN, results of laser vaporization and those of cryotherapy have been comparable. Cryotherapy is much less expensive. It is techniquely easier to use and requires quieter, more reliable and less cumbersome equipment. Laser affords more precise tissue ablation, leaves less necrotic tissue, heals slightly faster, and may cause a transformation zone to move cephalad less frequently. Laser can be used for certain CIN lesions which cryotherapy would not cover. Patients frequently find laser less objectionable, when cost is not considered. At the present time, the expense of laser equipment does not seem warranted for the treatment of CIN alone. If laser equipment is available to the physician, it is as effective as other conservative modalities in the treatment of CIN and has applicability to a variety of vulvar and vaginal disorders not covered in this review.
mesh_terms: D002245:Carbon Dioxide; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D003452:Cryosurgery / Q000191:economics; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D053685:Laser Therapy; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*
chemical_list: D002245:Carbon Dioxide