Trial reportArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Video colposcopy versus headlight for large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ): a randomised trial.
Trial report in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04326049 (Performance of Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone Using Videocolposcopy Versus Binocular Colposcopy in Women With Cervical Dysplasia), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Performance of Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone Using Videocolposcopy Versus Binocular Colposcopy in Women With Cervical Dysplasia: a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare resected cone mass and resection margin status when performing Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ) using video colposcopy (LLETZ-VC) versus a headlight (LLETZ-HL) in women with cervical dysplasia.
methodsProspective, randomised trial (monocentric) at a specialised cervical dysplasia unit in a University Hospital. Women with a biopsy-proven CIN2 + or persisting CIN1 or diagnostic LLETZ were recruited and randomised. LLETZ was performed either under video colposcopic vision or using a standard surgical headlight. The primary endpoint was resected cone mass. Secondary endpoints were the rate of involved margins, fragmentation of the specimen, procedure time, time to complete haemostasis (TCH), blood loss, pain, intra- and postoperative complications, and surgeon preference.
resultsLLETZ-VC and LLETZ-HL (109 women each) had comparable cone masses (1.57 [0.98-2.37] vs. 1.67 [1.15-2.46] grams; P = 0.454). TCH was significantly shorter in the LLETZ-VC arm (60 [41-95.2] vs. 90 [47.2-130.2] seconds; P = 0.008). There was no statistically significant difference in involved resection margins (6/87 [6.5%] vs. 16/101 [13.7%], P = 0.068) and postoperative complications (13/82 [13.7%] vs. 22/72 [23.4%], P = 0.085). Patient-reported outcomes favoured LLETZ-VC with a lower use of analgesics (6/80 [7.0%] vs. 17/87 [16.3%]; P = 0.049). However, LLETZ-VC was more difficult to perform with significantly lower ratings for handling (7 [5-9] vs. 9 [8-10]; P < 0.001) and general satisfaction (7.5 [5-9] vs. 10 [8-10]; P < 0.001).
conclusionIntraoperative video colposcopy for LLETZ has minimal benefits at the cost of surgeons' satisfaction. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT04326049 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.