Comparing loop electrosurgical procedure pathology results in the inpatient and outpatient setting

Loop electrosurgical excision procedures (LEEPs) provide diagnostic information and may be therapeutic. There is limited evidence comparing LEEP outcomes as they relate to treatment setting. We sought to evaluate specimen outcomes of inpatient versus outpatient LEEPs. All patients who underwent LEEP over eight years at a single institution were identified retrospectively. Chart review was conducted to extract data. We analyzed 868 LEEP specimens; 86.4% from the outpatient and 13.6% from the inpatient setting. There was no significant difference in the rates of positive margins or thermal artifact. Fragmentation of the specimen was noted in 39% of inpatient LEEPs compared to 26.1% of outpatient LEEPs (p = 0.14). The median depth of specimen was 8 millimeters in both groups. These results suggest that outpatient LEEP may be equally effective in the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with potential cost and patient safety implications.

Cervical cancer; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Colposcopy; LEEP; Loop electrosurgical excision procedure

[1] Teoh D, Musa F, Salani R, Huh W, Jimenez E. Diagnosis and management of adenocarcinoma in situ: a society of gynecologic oncology evidence-based review and recommendations. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020; 135: 869–878.

[2] Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, Ronco G, Schenck U, Segnan N, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Second edition—summary document. Annals of Oncology. 2010; 21: 448–458.

[3] Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, Chelmow D, Einstein MH, Garcia F, et al. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2020; 24: 102–131.

[4] Khunnarong J, Bunyasontikul N, Tangjitgamol S. Treatment outcomes of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or invasive carcinoma who underwent loop electrosurgical excisoin procedure. World Journal of Oncology. 2021; 12: 111–118.

[5] Jiang YM, Chen CX, Li L. Meta-analysis of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. OncoTargets and Therapy. 2016; 9: 3907–3915.

[6] Leimbacher B, Samartzis N, Imesch P, Dedes KJ, Fink D, Canonica C. Inpatient and outpatient loop electrosurgery excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a retrospective analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2012; 285: 1441–1445.

[7] Carrigg A, Teschendorf C, Amaro D, Weidner N, Tipps A, Shabaik A, et al. Examination of sources of diagnostic error leading to cervical cone biopsies with no evidence of dysplasia. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2013; 139: 422–427.

[8] IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. IBM Corp: Armonk, NY. 2021. Available at: https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics (Accessed: 01 May 2023).

[9] Mercuzot A, Chevreau J, Sevestre H, Muszynski C, Arbyn M, Sergent F, et al. Impact of anaesthesia mode on evaluation of LEEP specimen dimensions. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 2017; 46: 339–342.

[10] Cibula D, Raspollini MR, Planchamp F, Centeno C, Chargari C, Felix A, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer—update 2023. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2023; 33: 649–666.

[11] Grubman J, Meinhardt SS, Nambiar A, Lea JS. Specimen fragmentation and loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife cone biopsy outcomes. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2020; 24: 27–33.

[12] Liu R, Liu C, Ding X. Association between loop electrosurgical excision procedure and adverse pregnncy outcomes: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2023; 36: 2183769.

[13] Loopik DL, van Drongelen J, Bekkers RLM, Voorham QJM, Melchers WJG, Massuger LFAG, et al. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and the risk of spontaneous preterm birth: a Dutch population-based cohort study with 45,259 pregnancy outcomes. PLOS Medicine. 2021; 18: e1003665.

[14] Noehr B, Jensen A, Frederiksen K, Tabor A, Kjaer SK. Depth of cervical cone removed by loop electrosurgical excision procedure and subsequent risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2009; 114: 1232–1238.

[15] Kyrgiou M, Athanasiou A, Kalliala IEJ, Paraskevaidi M, Mitra A, Martin-Hirsch PP, et al. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial lesions and early invasive disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017; 11: CD012847.