Cold-knife conization versus loop excision: histopathologic and clinical results of a randomized trial

Abstract

Ninety patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were randomly assigned to loop excision (n = 38) or cold-knife conization (n = 52). All specimens were well evaluable at histology. The average width of the lesions at histology was 10.2 and 9.7 mm, respectively (ns). The average weight of the specimens was 2.6 and 5.6 g (P < 0.01) and the average depth was 9.2 and 15.8 mm (P < 0.01), respectively. The distance between the cervical resection margin and CIN was 14 mm after loop excision and 24 mm after cold-knife conization (P < 0.06). The margins of the specimen were not clear of disease in 8 patients after loop excision and in 12 patients after conization (ns). Two patients after loop excision and in three patients after cold-knife conization had postoperative bleeding. The results suggest that, compared with cold-knife conization, loop excision removes less healthy tissue without reducing the chances for cure.