[1] Rivoire WA, Monego HI, Dos Reis R, et al. Comparison of loop electrosurgical conization with one or two passes in high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias[J].Gynecol Obstet Invest,2009,67(4):228-235.DOI:10.1159/000209214.
[2] Ghaem-Maghami S, Sagi S, Majeed G, et al. Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis[J].Lancet Oncol,2007,8(11):985-993.DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70283-8.
[3] Oliveira CA, Russomano FB, Gomes Júnior SC, et al. Risk of persistent high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion after electrosurgical excisional treatment with positive margins: a meta-analysis[J].Sao Paulo Med J,2012,130(2):119-125.DOI:10.1590/s1516-31802012000200009.
[4] Kietpeerakool C, Khunamornpong S, Srisomboon J, et al. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II-III with endocervical cone margin involvement after cervical loop conization: is there any predictor for residual disease?[J].J Obstet Gynaecol Res,2007,33(5):660-664.DOI:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00628.x.
[5] Chen JY, Wang ZL, Wang ZY, et al. The risk factors of residual lesions and recurrence of the high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) patients with positive-margin after conization[J].Medicine (Baltimore),2018,97(41):e12792.DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000012792.
[6] Simões RB, Campaner AB. Post-cervical conization outcomes in patients with high-grade intraepithelial lesions[J].APMIS,2013,121(12):1153-1161.DOI:10.1111/apm.12064.
[7] Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, et al. Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer[J].Vaccine,2012,30 Suppl 5:F88-F99.DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.095.
[8] Smart OC, Sykes P, Macnab H, et al. Testing for high risk human papilloma virus in the initial follow-up of women treated for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions[J].Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol,2010,50(2):164-167.DOI:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01132.x.
[9] Heymans J, Benoy IH, Poppe W, et al. Type-specific HPV geno-typing improves detection of recurrent high-grade cervical neoplasia after conisation[J].Int J Cancer,2011,129(4):903-909.DOI:10.1002/ijc.25745.
[10] Bogani G, Pinelli C, Chiappa V, et al. Age-specific predictors of cervical dysplasia recurrence after primary conization: analysis of 3,212 women[J].J Gynecol Oncol,2020,31(5):e60.DOI:10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e60.
[11] Ouh YT, Cho HW, Kim SM, et al. Risk factors for type-specific persistence of high-risk human papillomavirus and residual/recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after surgical treatment[J].Obstet Gynecol Sci,2020,63(5):631-642.DOI:10.5468/ogs.20049.
[12] Hoffman SR, Le T, Lockhart A, et al. Patterns of persistent HPV infection after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): a systematic review[J].Int J Cancer,2017,141(1):8-23.DOI:10.1002/ijc.30623.
[13] Rizzuto I, Nalam M, Jiang J, et al. Risk factors for HPV persistence and cytology anomalies at follow-up after treatment for cervical dysplasia[J].Int J Gynaecol Obstet,2018,141(2):240-244.DOI:10.1002/ijgo.12431.
[14] Kolben TM, Etzel LT, Bergauer F, et al. A randomized trial comparing limited-excision conisation to large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) in cervical dysplasia patients[J].J Gynecol Oncol,2019,30(3):e42.DOI:10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e42.
[15] Zhang W, Gong X, Wu Q, et al. The clearance of high-risk human papillomavirus is sooner after thin loop electrosurgical excision procedure (t-LEEP)[J].J Invest Surg,2019,32(6):560-565.DOI:10.1080/08941939. 2018.1483449.
[16] Indman PD. Modern colposcopy: textbook and atlas (third edition)[J].Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology,2012,19(4): 538.DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2012.03.002.
[17] Kliemann LM, Silva M, Reinheimer M, et al. Minimal cold knife conization height for high-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion treatment[J].Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol,2012,165(2):342-346.DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.08.016.
[18] Bae HS, Chung YW, Kim T, et al. The appropriate cone depth to avoid endocervical margin involvement is dependent on age and disease severity[J].Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand,2013,92(2):185-192.DOI:10.1111/aogs.12025.
|