Literature Review of Cervical Regeneration after Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure, and Study Project (CeVaLEP) Proposal

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorLūse, Laura
dc.contributor.authorUrtāne, Anda Ķīvīte
dc.contributor.authorLisovaja, Ija
dc.contributor.authorJermakova, Irina
dc.contributor.authorDonders, Gilbert G.G.
dc.contributor.authorVedmedovska, Natālija
dc.contributor.institutionResidency Unit
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Public Health and Epidemiology
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-16T21:03:03Z
dc.date.available2022-08-16T21:03:03Z
dc.date.issued2022-04
dc.descriptionPublisher Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compile existing knowledge on the level of cervical regeneration (detected by ultrasound) after loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and to suggest research protocol for further studies. Methods: We conducted a literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases using the keywords “cervix” and “regeneration” without year restrictions. Our eligibility criteria included studies that analysed cervical volume and length regeneration using ultrasound. A literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (reg. no. CRD42021264062). Information about the studies was extracted from each analysed study on an Excel datasheet and the average regeneration with standard deviation was calculated. All included studies’ possible biases were assessed by the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) quality assessment tool. Results: The literature search identified 802 papers and four trials (n = 309) that met our criteria. They investigated cervical length and volume regeneration after LEEP using ultrasound, concluding that there is a profound regeneration deficit. Average cervical length regeneration after 6 months was 83.4% (±10.8%) and volume regeneration was 87.4% (±6.1%). All analysed studies had their biases; therefore, based on the conducted studies’ protocols, we present a CeVaLEP research protocol to guide high-quality studies. Conclusion: After LEEP, there is a cervical regeneration deficit. There is a lack of high-quality studies that assess cervical volume regeneration and its relation to obstetrical outcomes. There is a gap in the field and more research is needed to define the prenatal risks related to cervical regeneration.en
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.format.extent3703418
dc.identifier.citationLūse, L, Urtāne, A Ķ, Lisovaja, I, Jermakova, I, Donders, G G G & Vedmedovska, N 2022, 'Literature Review of Cervical Regeneration after Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure, and Study Project (CeVaLEP) Proposal', Journal of clinical medicine, vol. 11, no. 8, 2096. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11082096
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/jcm11082096
dc.identifier.issn2077-0383
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.rsu.lv/jspui/handle/123456789/9411
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85127828139&partnerID=8YFLogxK
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of clinical medicine
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectcervical intraepithelial neoplasia
dc.subjectcervix uteri
dc.subjectcone resection
dc.subjectHPV
dc.subjectmicrobiota
dc.subjectpreterm delivery
dc.subjecttreatment
dc.subject3.2 Clinical medicine
dc.subject1.1. Scientific article indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus database
dc.subjectGeneral Medicine
dc.titleLiterature Review of Cervical Regeneration after Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure, and Study Project (CeVaLEP) Proposalen
dc.type/dk/atira/pure/researchoutput/researchoutputtypes/contributiontojournal/systematicreview

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Literature_Review_of_Cervical_Regeneration.pdf
Size:
3.53 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Research outputs from Pure / Zinātniskās darbības rezultāti no ZDIS Pure