Factors That Influence Surgical Margin State in Patients Undergoing Cold Knife Conization – A Single Center Experience

Open access


Aim: To evaluate the factors that influence the surgical margin state in patients undergoing cold knife conization at the University Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

Materials and methods: We have retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all patients that underwent a cold knife conization at our Clinic in 2015. We cross-referenced the surgical margin state with the histopathological diagnosis (LSIL, HSIL or micro-invasive/invasive cancer), menopausal status of the patients, number of pregnancies, surgeon experience, operating time and cone depth. The data was analyzed with the Chi square test, Fisher’s exact test for categorical data and Student’s T test for continuous data and univariate and multivariate logistical regressions were performed.

Results: A total of 246 medical records have neen analyzed, out of which 29 (11.79%) patients had LSIL, 194 (78.86%) had HSIL and 23 (9.34%) patients suffered micro-invasive/invasive cervical cancer. The surgical margins were positive in 78 (31.7%) of the patients. The average age of the patients was 41.13 and 35 (14.23%) of the patients were menopausal. The multivariate logistic regression identified preoperative forceps biopsy of micro-invasive SCC, HSIL or higher cone specimen histology and shorter cone depth as independent predictors of surgical margin involvement in patients undergoing cold knife conization.

Conclusion: In the current study, we have found no association between the inherent characteristics of the patient and the surgeon and the surgical margin state after a CKC. The most important predictors for positive margins were the severity of the lesion and the cone depth.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Horner MJ Ries LA Krapcho M et al. SEER cancer statistics review 1975-2006. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csp/1975_2006.

  • 2. Crane JM. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1058-62.

  • 3. Kainz C Gitsch G Heinzl Hm Breitenecker G. Incidence of cervical smears indicating dysplasia among Austrian women durign the 1980s. Br. J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:541-4.

  • 4. Ting J Kruzikas DT Smith JS. A global review of age-specific and overall prevalence of cervical lesions. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2010;20:1244–9.

  • 5. Massad LS Einstein MH Huh WK et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;121(4):829-46.

  • 6. Kyrgiou M Kaliopoulos G Martin – Hirsch P. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta–analysis. Lancet 2006;367:489–98.

  • 7. Ghaem-Maghami S Sagi S Majeed G Soutter WP. Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(11):985–93.

  • 8. Oliveira CA Russomano FB Gomes Júnior SC Corrêa FM. Risk of persistent high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion after electrosurgical excisional treatment with positive margins: a meta-analysis. Sao Paulo Med J 2012;130:119-25.

  • 9. Lu CH Liu FS Kuo CJ Chang CC Ho ES. Prediction of persistence or recurrence after conization forcervical intraepithelial neoplasia III. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:830-5.

  • 10. Tillmanns TD Falkner CA Engle DB Wan JY Mannel RS Walker JL et al. Preoperative predictors of positive margins after loop electrosurgical excisional procedure-Cone. Gynecol Oncol 2006;100:379-84.

  • 11. Paraskevaidis E Lolis ED Koliopoulos G Alamanos Y Fotiou S Kitchener HC. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after large loop excision with clear margins. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:828-31.

  • 12. Kietpeerakool C Khunamornpong S Srisomboon J Siriaunkgul S Suprasert P. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II-III with endocervical cone margin involvement after cervical loop conization: is there any predictor for residual disease? J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2007;33:660-4.

  • 13. Ferlay J Shin HR Bray F Forman D Mathers C Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(12):2893-917.

  • 14. Herbert A Smith JA. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (CIN III) and invasive cervical carcinoma: the yawning gap revisited and the treatment of risk. Cytopathology 1999; 10:161-70.

  • 15. Narducci F Occelli B Boman F Vinatier D Leroy JL. Positive margins after conization and risk of persistent lesion. Gynecologic Oncology 2000;76:311–4.

  • 16. Mohamed-Noor K Quinn MA Tan J. Outcomes after cervical cold knife conization with complete and incomplete excision of abnormal epithelium: a review of 699 cases. Gynecologic Oncology 1997;67:34–8.

  • 17. Jakus S Edmonds P Dunton C King SA. Margin status and excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a review. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 2000;55:520–7.

  • 18. Leguevaque P Motton S Decharme A Soule-Tholy M Escourrou G Hoff J. Predictors of recurrence in high-grade cervical lesions and a plan of management. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2010;36:1073–9.

  • 19. Baloglu A Uysal D Bezircioglu I Bicer M Inci A. Residual and recurrent disease rates following LEEP treatment in high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2010;282:69–73.

  • 20. Chen Y Lu H Wan X Lv W Xie X. Factors associated with positive margins in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and postconization management. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009;107:107–10.

  • 21. Chang D-Y Cheng W-F Torng P-L Chen R-J Huang S-C. Prediction of residual neoplasia based on histopathology and margin status of conization specimens. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;63:53–6.

  • 22. Kliemann LM Silva M Reinheimer M Rivoire WA Capp E Dos Reis R. Minimal cold knife conization height for high-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012; 165: 342-6.

  • 23. Papoutsis D Rodolakis A Mesogitis S Sotiropoulou M Antsaklis A. Appropriate cone dimensions to achieve negative excision margins after large loop excision of transformation zone in the uterine cervix for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013; 75: 163-8.

  • 24. Milinovic D Kalafatic D Babic D Oreskovic LB Grsic HL Oreskovic S. Minimally invasive therapy ofcervical intraepithelial neoplasia for fertility preservation. Pathol Oncol Res 2009;15:521-5.

  • 25. Baldauf JJ Dreyfus M Ritter J Meyer P Philippe E. Risk of cervical stenosis after large loop excision or laser conization. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88: 933-8. [Crossref]

  • 26. Girardi F Heydarfadai M Koroschetz F Pickel H Winter R. Cold-knife conization versus loop excision: histopathologic and clinical results of a randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 55: 368-70. [Crossref]

  • 27. Andia D Mozo de Rosales F Villasante A Rivero B Diez J Perez C. Pregnancy outcome in patients treated with cervical conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 112: 225-8. [Crossref]

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2017: 0.45

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.177

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 276 99 5
PDF Downloads 169 82 3