M. Spitzer et al., THE USE OF LARGE-LOOP EXCISION OF THE TRANSFORMATION ZONE IN AN INNER-CITY POPULATION, Obstetrics and gynecology, 82(5), 1993, pp. 731-735
Objective. To determine whether large-loop excision of the transformat
ion zone (LLETZ) can be used in our population to treat patients in a
routine colposcopy clinic without diminishing the capability to see th
e large number of patients who require care, and to compare these resu
lts to our previous experience with laser surgery. Methods: Patients f
ound to have squamous intraepithelial lesions on colposcopically direc
ted biopsies were offered treatment with LLETZ during counseling regar
ding their biopsy findings. Procedures included ''ablation equivalents
'' and ''cone biopsy equivalents'' using local anesthesia. Follow-up e
xaminations were used to determine cure and included cytology, colposc
opy, and directed biopsies when indicated. The cure rate was compared
to our previous experience with laser surgery. Results: Two hundred th
irty-six patients were treated in the colposcopy clinic without dimini
shing the capability to see all patients requiring care. Complications
were few. The mean (+/- standard deviation) follow-up period was 50.7
+/- 25.3 weeks. The overall cure rate of 91.3% (95% confidence interv
al [CI] 87.1-95.5) was not influenced by the severity of the disease,
but positive endocervical margins significantly lowered the cure rate
to 69.2% compared with those who had negative margins. Before this ser
ies, only 73.1% of our patients scheduled for laser surgery returned f
or treatment. Assuming a 90% cure rate among those who returned, this
means that the actual cure rate was only 65.8%. The likelihood of cure
was 1.37 times greater (95% CI 1.27-1.52, P < .0001) using LLETZ in t
he clinic at the time the patient was counseled regarding her biopsy f
indings than using laser at a later date. In 33 patients, the LLETZ sp
ecimen showed no evidence of disease. The relative risk of negative hi
stology was 3.31 (95% CI 1.78-6.13; P <.001) when LLETZ was done for a
discrepancy between cytology and histology as opposed to any other in
dication. Cancer was found on the LLETZ specimen in four patients (two
microinvasive, two frankly invasive), but was not suspected preoperat
ively in any of the patients. Conclusion: In our inner-city clinic, tr
eatment with LLETZ at the time the patient was counseled regarding her
biopsy finding improved the actual cure rate. The LLETZ procedure can
be done safely in a clinic setting without diminishing the capability
to care for a large number of patients.