Outpatient excisional management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. A prospective, randomized comparison between loop diathermy excision and laser excisional conization.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of our study was to compare loop diathermy excision and laser excisional conization with respect to treatment time, reliability, effectiveness, and safety.


METHODS
Three hundred women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia attending our colposcopy clinic were randomized to treatment with either loop diathermy excision (group 1, n = 150) or carbon dioxide laser excisional conization (group 2, n = 150), both performed with local anesthesia on an outpatient basis. Student's t or Mann-Whitney test were used to compare continuous data; the chi 2 test was used for categoric data.


RESULTS
The mean age, parity, histologic features, depth of excision, and occurrence of residual or recurrent disease were similar; however, the mean time required to complete treatment and hemostasis (2.5 +/- 3.6 vs 24.2 +/- 11.8 min), patient discomfort, blood loss (2.77 +/- 3.76 vs 27.15 +/- 17.51 ml; p < 0.001), and considerable thermal artifact affecting histologic interpretation of excision margins (5 cases vs 25 cases; p < 0.01) were significantly less in group 1 than in group 2.


CONCLUSIONS
In our experience outpatient loop diathermy excision is an equally effective, quicker, safer, and more reliable excisional technique than laser excisional conization.
Oyesanya
O A
OA
Central Middlesex Hospital, London, England.
Amerasinghe
C N
CN
Manning
E A
EA
D000328:Adult; D000553:Ambulatory Care; D004564:Electrocoagulation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D053685:Laser Therapy; D009364:Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D011446:Prospective Studies; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*