Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: 10.3390/jcm11082096
Title: Literature Review of Cervical Regeneration after Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure, and Study Project (CeVaLEP) Proposal
Authors: Lūse, Laura
Urtāne, Anda Ķīvīte
Lisovaja, Ija
Jermakova, Irina
Donders, Gilbert G.G.
Vedmedovska, Natālija
Residency Unit
Department of Public Health and Epidemiology
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Keywords: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia;cervix uteri;cone resection;HPV;microbiota;preterm delivery;treatment;3.2 Clinical medicine;1.1. Scientific article indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus database;General Medicine
Issue Date: Apr-2022
Citation: Lūse , 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
Abstract: Objective: 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.
Description: Publisher Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11082096
ISSN: 2077-0383
Appears in Collections:Research outputs from Pure / Zinātniskās darbības rezultāti no ZDIS Pure

Files in This Item:


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.