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:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
Literature_Review_of_Cervical_Regeneration.pdf | 3.62 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.