Article

Time from cervical conization to pregnancy and preterm birth

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.37). 03/2007; 109(2 Pt 1):314-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000251497.55065.74
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To estimate whether the time interval between cervical conization and subsequent pregnancy is associated with risk of preterm birth.
Our study is a case control study nested in a retrospective cohort. Women who underwent colposcopic biopsy or conization with loop electrosurgical excision procedure, large loop excision of the transformation zone, or cold knife cone and subsequently delivered at our hospital were identified with electronic databases. Variables considered as possible confounders included maternal race, age, marital status, payor status, years of education, self-reported tobacco use, history of preterm delivery, and dimensions of cone specimen.
Conization was not associated with preterm birth or any subtypes of preterm birth. Among women who underwent conization, those with a subsequent preterm birth had a shorter conization-to-pregnancy interval (337 days) than women with a subsequent term birth (581 days) (P=.004). The association between short conization-to-pregnancy interval and preterm birth remained significant when controlling for confounders including race and cone dimensions. The effect of short conization-to-pregnancy interval on subsequent preterm birth was more persistent among African Americans when compared with white women.
Women with a short conization-to-pregnancy interval are at increased risk for preterm birth. Women of reproductive age who must have a conization procedure can be counseled that conceiving within 2 to 3 months of the procedure may be associated with an increased risk of preterm birth.
II.

0 Followers
 · 
79 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the surgical excisional procedures for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) treatment both on subsequent fertility (cervical factor) and pregnancy complication (risk of spontaneous preterm delivery). We retrospectively analyzed 236 fertile women who underwent conization for CIN. We included in the study 47 patients who carried on pregnancy and delivered a viable fetus. Patients were asked about postconization pregnancies, obstetrical outcomes, and a possible diagnosis of secondary infertility caused by cervical stenosis. We evaluated the depth of surgical excision, the timing between cervical conization and subsequent pregnancies, surgical technique, and maternal age at delivery. We recorded 47 deliveries, 10 cases of preterm delivery; 8 of them were spontaneous. The depth of surgical excision showed a statistically significant inverse correlation with gestational age at birth. The risk of spontaneous preterm delivery increased when conization depth exceeded a cut-off value of 1.5 cm. Our data do not demonstrated a relation between conization and infertility due to cervical stenosis.
    Disease markers 01/2013; 35(6):721-6. DOI:10.1155/2013/686027 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence on fertility and pregnancy outcome in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) patients after a loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) or cold-knife conization (CKC). Methods: 269 patients with CIN-II-III who wanted to conceive were prospectively enrolled in this randomized clinical trial to receive either the LEEP or CKC procedure. Fertility, neonatal and maternal outcomes were observed and compared. Results: 244 evaluable patients were divided into two groups. There were 124 in the LEEP group and 120 in the CKC group. The preterm premature rupture of membranes (16 vs. 8%; p = 0.03), preterm delivery rate (11 vs. 5%; p = 0.04) and low birth weight infants rate (<2,500 g) (10 vs. 6%; p = 0.04) were higher in the CKC group than in the LEEP group, but there was no difference in mean birth weight, cesarean delivery, labor induction, or neonatal intensive care unit admission. There was no case of neonatal mortality. Conclusions: In a prospective evaluation the findings of this study demonstrate that LEEP is safer for future pregnancies when compared to CKC. LEEP should be an appropriate choice for patients with CIN who want to become pregnant later in life. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.
    Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 04/2014; 77(4). DOI:10.1159/000360538 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess whether loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) increases the risk for preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and clarify whether the increased risk for preterm birth is attributable to the procedure itself or to risk factors associated with cervical dysplasia. Two authors performed a search of the relevant data through February 2013 using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included observational studies that compared rates of preterm birth in women with prior LEEP with women with no history of cervical excision. Nineteen of 559 identified studies met selection criteria. We compared women with a history of LEEP with two unexposed groups without a history of cervical excision: 1) women with an unknown or no history of cervical dysplasia; and 2) women with a history of cervical dysplasia but no cervical excision. The primary outcome was preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestation, spontaneous preterm birth, preterm premature rupture of membranes, and perinatal mortality. DerSimonian-Laird random effects models were used. We assessed heterogeneity between studies using the Q and I tests. Stratified analyses and metaregression were performed to assess confounding. Nineteen studies were included with a total of 6,589 patients with a history of LEEP and 1,415,015 without. Overall, LEEP was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation (pooled relative risk 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.92). However, no increased risk was found when women with a history of LEEP were compared with women with a history cervical dysplasia but no cervical excision (pooled relative risk 1.08, 95% CI 0.88-1.33). Women with a history of LEEP have similar risk of preterm birth when compared with women with prior dysplasia but no cervical excision. Common risk factors for both preterm birth and dysplasia likely explain findings of association between LEEP and preterm birth, but LEEP itself may not be an independent risk factor for preterm birth.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 04/2014; 123(4):752-761. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000174 · 4.37 Impact Factor