ArticleTranslational cancer research2020
A comparison study of post-operative infection analysis of cold-knife conization and loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathological changes of high-risk human papillomavirus-positive cervical lesions after surgery and analysis of risk factors for persistent positivity.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy of Photodynamic Therapy and Cold Knife Conization for Cervical High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Prediction of Residual and Recurrent High-Grade CIN Post-LEEP.Cancer management and research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) is a premalignant condition of the cervical cancer. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and cold-knife conization (CKC) were the most effective treatment. Most studies focused on the recurrence rate, positive margin rate, residual disease rate, secondary hemorrhage or cervical stenosis of these two methods. At present, there are few researches about the post-operative infection comparing LEEP with CKC for treating HSIL.
methodsOne hundred and fourteen patients diagnosed as HSIL were underwent cold conization (n=43) or LEEP (n=71), according to 1:2 matching approximately and being divided randomly into two groups. The information, including the post-operational inflammatory complications, the leucorrhea abnormalities, the pathogens isolated from cervical secretions and pathological reports, were collected for comparison.
resultsThere was no significant difference between them in bleeding, diameter, depth or volume of tissue between two groups. However, the operation time of the CKC group (24.81±11.09) minutes was longer than that of LEEP group (15.79±9.82) minutes. Seventeen patients of the LEEP group were admitted postoperatively as emergencies for secondary-hemorrhage. But it did not happen in CKC group. During the follow-up period, 28 patients (CKC 8
conclusionsThese two excision procedures for treating HSIL have their respective advantages and disadvantages. This study indicates that the incidence of persistent cervical infection after the CKC operation with Sturmdorf suturing is lower than that of after LEEP surgery. Clinicians should pay attention to the pathogen isolated from cervical post-operative secretion. It is conducive to find hidden pathogens and control subsequent surgical inflammation.
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.