Comparison of Two Step LEEP and Cold Conisation For Cervical Intraepithelial Lesions to Decrease Positive Surgical Margins

  • Senol, Taylan (Obstetric and Gynecology Department, Zeynep Kamil Training and Research Hospital) ;
  • Polat, Mesut (Obstetric and Gynecology Department, Zeynep Kamil Training and Research Hospital) ;
  • Ozkaya, Enis (Obstetric and Gynecology Department, Zeynep Kamil Training and Research Hospital) ;
  • Karateke, Ates (Obstetric and Gynecology Department, Zeynep Kamil Training and Research Hospital)
  • Published : 2016.07.01


Purpose: To assess the success rates of two step loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) compared with conventional cold conization procedures for decreasing positive surgical margins. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 70 patients who underwent colposcopic evaluation in Zeynep Kamil Women and Children's Health Training and Research Hospital between 2013-2015 with indications of CIN 2/3 or persistent CIN 1 for more than 2 years. The study included age matched groups of patients with similar histopathololical lesions who underwent cold conization (n=40) or LEEP (N=30). Results: Comparison of tissue characteristics between the two groups revealed significantly higher deepest depth and lower volume of tissue removed by the two step LEEP. Ectocervical positivity rate was similar between groups (1/39 versus 0/29, P>0.05), while endocervical surgical margin positivity rate was significantly higher in the cold conization group (9/39 versus 0/29, P<0.05). Surgical margin positive cases were significantly older than the cases with negative margins (P<0.05). Conclusions: Two step LEEP made it easier to reach the squamocolumnar junction in the endocervical region with lower blood loss and applicability in office settings. Our study suggests to use two step approach in cases with high grade and glandular CIN.


  1. Apgar BS, Kittendorf AL, Bettcher CM, et al (2009). Update on ASCCP consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical screening tests and cervical histology. Am Fam Physician, 80, 147-55.
  2. Ayhan A, Boynukalin FK, Guven S, et al (2009). Repeat LEEP conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and positive ectocervical margins. Int J Gynecol Obstetrics, 105, 14 -7.
  3. Bruinsma FJ, Quinn MA (2011). The risk of preterm birth following treatment for precancerous changes in the cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Obstetrics Gynaecol, 118, 1031-41.
  4. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, et al (2009). Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasiagrade. Obstet Gynecol, 113, 18-25.
  5. Costa S, Nuzzo MD, Terzano P, et al (2000). Factors associated with cone margin involvement in CIN patients undergoing conization-equivalent electrosurgical procedure. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 79, 586-92.
  6. Debarge VH, Collinet P, Vinatier D, et al (2003). Value of human papillomavirus testing after conization by loop electrosurgical excision for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Gynecol Oncol, 90, 587-92.
  7. Duggan BD, Felix JC, Muderspach LI, et al (1999). Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a randomized, prospective study. Am J Obstetrics Gynecol, 180, 276-82.
  8. Fanning, J, Padratzik J (2002). Cold knife conization vs. LEEP. Are they the same procedure? J Reproductive Med, 47, 33-5.
  9. Frega A, Sesti F, De Sanctis, et al (2013). Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Gynecol Obstetrics, 122, 145-9.
  10. Kennedy AW, Biscotti CV (2002). Further study of the management of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Gynecologic Oncol, 86, 361-4.
  11. Kim K, Kang SB, Chung HH, et al (2009). Value of second pass in loop electrosurgical excisional procedure. J Korean Med Sci, 24, 110-3.
  12. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al (2006). Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet, 367, 489-98.
  13. Latif NA, Neubauer NL, Helenowski IB, et al (2015). Management of adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: a comparison of loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife conization. J Lower Genital Tract Disease, 19, 97-102.
  14. Mahadevan N, Horwell DH (1993). Histological incomplete excision of CIN after large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) merits careful followup, not retreatment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 100, 794-5.
  15. Malapati R, Chaparala S, Cejtin HE (2011). Factors influencing persistence or recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after loop electrosurgical excision procedure. J Lower Genital Tract Disease, 15, 177-9.
  16. Maluf PJ, Adad SJ, Murta EFC (2004). Outcome after conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III: relation with surgical margins, extension to the crypts and mitoses. Tumori, 90, 473-7.
  17. Martin-Hirsch PL, Paraskevaidis E, Kitchener H (1999). Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3.
  18. McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C, et al (2008). Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol, 9, 425-34.
  19. Munro A, Leung Y, Spilsbury K, et al (2015). Comparison of cold knife cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision procedure in the management of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: What is the gold standard? Gynecologic Oncol, 137, 258-63.
  20. Nam K, Chung S, Kim J, et al (2009). Factors associated with HPV persistence after conization in patients with negative margins. J Gynecologic Oncol, 20, 91-5.
  21. Narducci F, Occelli B, Boman F, et al (2000). Positive margins after conization and risk of persistent lesion. Gynecologic Oncol, 76, 311-4.
  22. Park JY, Lee SM, Yoo CW, et al (2007). Risk factors predicting residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III and microinvasive cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncol, 107, 39-44.
  23. Prendiville W, Cullimore J, Norman S (1989). Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ). A new method of management for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG: An Int J Obstetrics Gynaecol, 96, 1054-60.
  24. Ramos MC, Pizarro DLB, Michelin MA, et al (2007). High-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, human papillomavirus and factors connected with recurrence following surgical treatment. Clin Experimental Obstetrics Gynecol, 35, 242-7.
  25. Sangkarat S, Ruengkhachorn I, Benjapibal M et al (2014). Longterm outcomes of a loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in a high incidence country. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 1035-9.
  26. Shin JW, Rho HS, Park CY (2009). Factors influencing the choice between cold knife conization and loop electrosurgical excisional procedure for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Obstetrics Gynaecol Res, 35, 126-30.
  27. Siriaree S, Srisomboon J, Kietpeerakool C, et al (2006). Highgrade squamous intraepithelial lesion with endocervical cone margin involvement after cervical loop electrosurgical excision: what should a clinician do? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 7, 463.
  28. Sozen H, Namazov A, Cakir S, et al (2013). Pregnancy outcomes after cold knife conization related to excised cone dimensions. A retrospective cohort study. J Reproductive Med, 59, 81-6.
  29. Tillmanns TD, Falkner CA, Engle DB, et al (2006). Preoperative predictors of positive margins after loop electrosurgical excisional procedure-cone. Gynecol Oncol, 100, 79-84.
  30. Wright Jr TC, Gagnon S, Richart RM, et al (1992). Treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia using the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Obstetrics Gynecol, 79, 173-8.
  31. Zhu M, He Y, Baak JP, et al (2015). Factors that influence persistence or recurrence of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with positive margins after the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a retrospective study. BMC Cancer, 15, 1.