Effects of cervical conisation on pregnancy outcome: a meta-analysis

References

• Acharya G, Kjeldberg I, Hansen SM, Sorheim N, Jacobsen BK, Maltau JM. 2005. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 272:109–112.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Albrechtsen S, Rasmussen S, Thoresen S, Irgens LM, Iversen OE. 2008. Pregnancy outcome in women before and after cervical conisation: population based cohort study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 337:a1343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Mandeel HM, Sagr E, Sait K, Latifah HM, Al-Obaid A, Al-Badawi IA, et al. 2016. Clinical practice guidelines on the screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention in Saudi Arabia. Annals of Saudi Medicine 36:313–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andia D, Mozo de Rosales F, Villasante A, Rivero B, Diez J, Perez C. 2011. Pregnancy outcome in patients treated with cervical conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: The Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 112:225–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begg CB, Berlin JA. 1989. Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81:107–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekassy Z, Iosif CS. 1996. Laser “miniconisation” and the outcome of subsequent pregnancy. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 258:75–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blomfield PI, Buxton J, Dunn J, Luesley DM. 1993. Pregnancy outcome after large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 169:620–625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruinsma F, Lumley J, Tan J, Quinn M. 2006. Precancerous changes in the cervix and risk of subsequent preterm birth. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 114:70–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruinsma FJ, Quinn MA. 2011. The risk of preterm birth following treatment for precancerous changes in the cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 118:1031–1041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen H, Liu X, Xu L. 2016. Incisal margin condition after LEEP for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia patients and prognosis. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 12:1019–1021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruickshank ME, Flannelly G, Campbell DM, Kitchener HC. 1995. Fertility and pregnancy outcome following large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 102:467–470.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ehsanipoor RM, Jolley JA, Goldshore MA, Szymanski LM, Haydon ML, Gaffaney CL, et al. 2014. The relationship between previous treatment for cervical dysplasia and preterm delivery in twin gestations. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine: The Official Journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetrics 27:821–824.
   Google Scholar
• Forsmo S, Hansen MH, Jacobsen BK, Oian P. 1996. Pregnancy outcome after laser surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica 75:139–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frega A, Sesti F, De Sanctis L, Pacchiarotti A, Votano S, Biamonti A, et al. 2013. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: The Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 122:145–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frey HA, Stout MJ, Odibo AO, Stamilio DM, Cahill AG, Roehl KA, et al. 2013. Risk of cesarean delivery after loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Obstetrics and Gynecology 121:39–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo HJ, Guo RX, Liu YL. 2013. Effects of loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cold knife conization on pregnancy outcomes. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology 34:79–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinonen A, Gissler M, Riska A, Paavonen J, Tapper AM, Jakobsson M. 2013. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure and the risk for preterm delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 121:1063–1068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemmingsson E. 1982. Outcome of third trimester pregnancies after cryotherapy of the uterine cervix. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 89:675–677.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jakobsson M, Gissler M, Sainio S, Paavonen J, Tapper AM. 2007. Preterm delivery after surgical treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstetrics and Gynecology 109:309–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang YM, Chen CX, Li L. 2016. Meta-analysis of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Oncotargets and Therapy 9:3907–3915.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirn V, Geiger P, Riedel C, Bergauer F, Friese K, Kainer F, et al. 2015. Cervical conisation and the risk of preterm delivery: a retrospective matched pair analysis of a German cohort. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 291:599–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klaritsch P, Reich O, Giuliani A, Tamussino K, Haas J, Winter R. 2006. Delivery outcome after cold-knife conization of the uterine cervix. Gynecologic Oncology 103:604–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristensen J, Langhoff-Roos J, Kristensen FB. 1993. Increased risk of preterm birth in women with cervical conization. Obstetrics and Gynecology 81:1005–1008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. 2006. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet (London, England) 367:489–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson G, Grundsell H, Gullberg B, Svennerud S. 1982. Outcome of pregnancy after conization. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica 61:461–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lima AF, Francisco C, Julio C, Paula T, Vitorino A, Borrego J. 2011. Obstetric outcomes after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: six years of experience. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease 15:276–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Qiu HF, Tang Y, Chen J, Lv J. 2014. Pregnancy outcome after the treatment of loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cold-knife conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 77:240–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michelin MA, Merino LM, Franco CA, Murta EF. 2009. Pregnancy outcome after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife conization. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology 36:17–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortoft G, Henriksen T, Hansen E, Petersen L. 2010. After conisation of the cervix, the perinatal mortality as a result of preterm delivery increases in subsequent pregnancy. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 117:258–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. 2007. Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine 26:4544–4562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prendiville W. 2009. The treatment of CIN: what are the risks? Cytopathology 20:145–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Gomez R, Luscher KP. 1997. Duration of pregnancy after carbon dioxide laser conization of the cervix: influence of cone height. Obstetrics and Gynecology 90:978–982.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, Exeter M, Whittaker J, McCowan L. 2004. Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA 291:2100–2106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagot P, Caroit Y, Winer N, Lopes P, Boog G. 1995. Obstetrical prognosis for carbon dioxide laser conisation of the uterine cervix. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 58:53–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samson SL, Bentley JR, Fahey TJ, McKay DJ, Gill GH. 2005. The effect of loop electrosurgical excision procedure on future pregnancy outcome. Obstetrics and Gynecology 105:325–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santesso N, Mustafa RA, Wiercioch W, Kehar R, Gandhi S, Chen Y, et al. 2016. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of benefits and harms of cryotherapy, LEEP, and cold knife conization to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: The Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 132:266–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz TM, Kolben T, Gallwas J, Crispin A, Dannecker C. 2015. Comparison of two surgical methods for the treatment of CIN: classical LLETZ (large-loop excision of the transformation zone) versus isolated resection of the colposcopic apparent lesion - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 16:225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanbhag S, Clark H, Timmaraju V, Bhattacharya S, Cruickshank M. 2009. Pregnancy outcome after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstetrics and Gynecology 114:727–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjoborg KD, Vistad I, Myhr SS, Svenningsen R, Herzog C, Kloster-Jensen A, et al. 2007. Pregnancy outcome after cervical cone excision: a case-control study. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica 86:423–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stang A. 2010. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European Journal of Epidemiology 25:603–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar