The problems of cervical conization for postmenopausal patients

Purpose: Cervical conization is the definitive treatment for women of any age who have cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). However, complications of the procedure have not been fully investigated in postmenopausal patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the results and complications of cervical conization performed on premenopausal and postmenopausal patients. Materials and Methods: This study recruited 405 patients who had undergone cervical laser conization. The median age was 36 years (range 20 to 75), and there were 361 (89.1%) premenopausal and 44 (10.9%) postmenopausal women. Results: The length of the cone removed from the postmenopausal patients was significantly longer than the length from the premenopausal patients (17.9 ± 3.9 mm vs. 15.7 ± 3.6 mm, respectively; p = 0.02). The rate of positive endocervical cone margins from the premenopausal patients was significantly higher than the rate from the postmenopausal patients (9.1% vs. 0%, respectively; p = 0.037). The rate of cervical stenosis was significantly higher in postmenopausal patients than in premenopausal patients (59.1% vs. 8.3%; respectively; p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the rates of frequency of intraoperative complications. Conclusions: Although deep incision is mandatory for complete excision of CIN in postmenopausal patients, it increases the incidence of cervical stenosis. Cervical conization may be a less invasive surgical procedure for older women with CIN than hysterectomy; however, the risk of postoperative complications remains, causing a dilemma for physicians treating postmenopausal women with CIN.

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervical conization; Postmenopause; Complications; Cervical stenosis.

[1] Ueda M., Ueki K., Kanemura M., Izuma S., Yamaguchi H., Nishiyama K., et al.: “Diagnostic and therapeutic laser conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2006, 101, 143.

[2] Yamaguchi H., Ueda M., Kanemura M., Izuma S., Nishiyama K., Tanaka Y., Noda S.: “Clinical efficacy of conservative laser therapy for early-stage cervical cancer”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2007, 17, 455.

[3] Mathevet P., Chemali E., Roy M., Dargent D.: “Long- term outcomeof a randomized study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2003, 106, 214.

[4] Brun J.L., Youbi A., Hocké C.J.: “Complications, sequellae and outcome of cervical conizations: evaluation of three surgical technics”. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod., 2002, 31, 558.

[5] Baldauf J.J., Dreyfus M., Ritter J., Meyer P., Philippe E.: “Risk of cervical stenosis after large loop excision or laser conization”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1996, 88, 933.

[6] Penna C., Fambrini M., Fallani M.G., Pieralli A., Scarselli G., Marchionni M.: “Laser CO2 conization in postmenopausal age: risk of cervical stenosis and unsatisfactory follow-up”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2005, 96, 771.

[7] Houlard S., Perrotin F., Fourquet F., Marret H., Lansac J., Body G.: “Risk factors for cervical stenosis after laser cone biopsy”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2002, 104, 144.

[8] Monteiro A.C., Russomano F.B., Camargo M.J., Silva K.S., Veiga F.R., Oliveira R.G.: “Cervical stenosis following electrosurgical conization”. Sao Paulo Med. J., 2008, 126, 209.

[9] Suh-Burgmann E.J., Whall-Strojwas D., Chang Y., Hundley D., Goodman A.: “Risk factors for cervical stenosis after loop electrocautery excision procedure”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2000, 96, 657.

[10] Boulanger J.C., Gondry J., Verhoest P., Capsie C., Najas S.: “Treatment of CIN after menopause”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2001, 95, 175.

[11] Moore B.C., Higgins R.V., Laurent S.L., Marroum M.C., Bellitt P.: “Predictive factors from cold knife conization for residual cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in subsequent hysterectomy”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1995, 173, 361.

[12] Kalogirou D., Antoniou G., Karakitsos P., Botsis D., Kalogirou O., Giannikos L.: “Predictive factors used to justify hysterectomy after loop conization: increasing age and severity of disease”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 1997, 18, 113.

[13] Bae H.S., Chung Y.W., Kim T., Lee K.W., Song J.Y.: “The appropriate cone depth to avoid endocervical margin involvement is dependent on age and disease severity”. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand., 2013, 92, 185.

[14] Shaco-Levy R., Eger G., Dreiher J., Benharroch D., Meirovitz M.: “Positive margin status in uterine cervix cone specimens is associated with persistent/ recurrent high-grade dysplasia”. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol., 2013, 33, 83.

[15] Kyrgiou M., Koliopoulos G., Martin-Hirsch P., Arbyn M., Prendiville W., Paraskevaidis E.: “Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis”. Lancet, 2006, 367, 489.

[16] Arbyn M., Kyrgiou M., Simoens C., Raifu A.O., Koliopoulos G., Martin-Hirsch P., et al.: “Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis”. BMJ, 2008, 337, a1284. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1284.

[17] Tan Y., Bennett M.J.: “Urinary catheter stent placement for treatment of cervical stenosis”. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2007, 47, 406.

[18] Grund D., Köhler C., Krauel H., Schneider A.: “A new approach to preserve fertility by using a coated nitinol stent in a patient with recurrentcervical stenosis”. Fertil. Steril., 2007, 87, 1212.e1 3.

[19] Nasu K., Narahara H.: “Management of severe cervical stenosis after conization by detention of nylon threads tied up to intrauterine contraceptive device”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., 2010, 281, 887.