Operator sex and experience do not influence conization outcomes in terms of cone volume, depth or resection margins

• Verfasst von: Stefanovic, Stefan [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Stefanovic Mitic, Iva [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Sütterlin, Marc [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Weiß, Christel [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Spaich, Saskia [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Operator sex and experience do not influence conization outcomes in terms of cone volume, depth or resection margins
• Verf.angabe: Stefan Stefanovic, Iva Stefanovic Mitic, Marc Sütterlin, Christel Weiß and Saskia Spaich
• E-Jahr: 2023
• Jahr: March-April 2023
• Umfang: 7 S.
• Illustrationen: Illustationen
• Fussnoten: Online veröffentlicht: 7. März 2023 ; Gesehen am 24.07.2024
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: In vivo
• Ort Quelle: Kapandriti, Attiki : IIAR, 2004
• Jahr Quelle: 2023
• Band/Heft Quelle: 37(2023), 2 vom: März/Apr., Seite 841-847
• ISSN Quelle: 1791-7549
• DOI: doi:10.21873/invivo.13151
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
• Sach-SW: conization
• Sach-SW: operator sex
• Sach-SW: surgeon experience
• K10plus-PPN: 1896182798

Abstract

Background/Aim: Conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is associated with longer time required to conceive, a higher risk of preterm delivery, and a myriad of obstetric complications. This study assessed whether operator sex and experience correlate with cone volume, depth, and resection margins in patients wishing to conceive and the general patient population. Patients and Methods: This retrospective single center cohort study included 141 women who had undergone conization for cervical dysplasia in 2020 and 2021. Loop size selection was guided by the preoperative colposcopy report and intraoperative diluted Lugol staining. The hemiellipsoid cone volume was compared for subgroups in three categories: patients operated on by residents vs. board-certified gynecologists; patients operated on by female vs. male surgeons; patients who wished to pursue future pregnancy after conization vs. those who did not. Results: Female surgeons excised insignificantly less cervical tissue compared with their male counterparts (p=0.08). In the subgroup of patients without the wish to conceive, male surgeons tended to excise significantly bigger volumes during conization (p=0.008). No significant difference (p=0.74) regarding volume of resected tissue was evidenced when comparing residents to board-certified surgeons, both in patient subgroups with (p=0.58) and without (p=0.36) a wish to conceive. Male surgeons tended to resect higher volumes (p=0.012) if board-certified compared to their board-certified female colleagues. Conclusion: There were insignificant differences regarding cone depth and volume or incomplete resection when stratified by operator experience and sex. However, male gynecologists removed significantly larger cone volumes in the subgroup of patients who did not pursue future pregnancy.