89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27651725)
41. Risk Factor Analysis of Persistent High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion After Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure Conization.
Chen L; Liu L; Tao X; Guo L; Zhang H; Sui L
J Low Genit Tract Dis; 2019 Jan; 23(1):24-27. PubMed ID: 30371553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Meta-analysis of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
Jiang YM; Chen CX; Li L
Onco Targets Ther; 2016; 9():3907-15. PubMed ID: 27418835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. [Discussion on the diagnosis and treatment of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in post-menopausal women].
Cao QW; You ZX; Qian XY; Heng D; Tang MY
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2019 Jun; 54(6):393-398. PubMed ID: 31262123
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. Residual disease and risk factors in patients with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and positive margins after initial conization.
Fu Y; Chen C; Feng S; Cheng X; Wang X; Xie X; Lü W
Ther Clin Risk Manag; 2015; 11():851-6. PubMed ID: 26056463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Clinicopathologic features of early adenocarcinoma of the cervix initially managed with cervical conization.
Poynor EA; Marshall D; Sonoda Y; Slomovitz BM; Barakat RR; Soslow RA
Gynecol Oncol; 2006 Dec; 103(3):960-5. PubMed ID: 16860853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. A prospective study of conization of the cervix in the management of cervical intraepithelial glandular neoplasia (CIGN)--a preliminary report.
Cullimore JE; Luesley DM; Rollason TP; Byrne P; Buckley CH; Anderson M; Williams DR; Waddell C; Hudson E; Shafi MI
Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1992 Apr; 99(4):314-8. PubMed ID: 1316142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Correction to: Necessity for subsequent surgery in women of child-bearing age with positive margins after conization.
Wang X; Xu J; Gao Y; Qu P
BMC Womens Health; 2021 Jun; 21(1):228. PubMed ID: 34074277
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. The risk factors of residual lesions and recurrence of the high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) patients with positive-margin after conization.
Chen JY; Wang ZL; Wang ZY; Yang XS
Medicine (Baltimore); 2018 Oct; 97(41):e12792. PubMed ID: 30313104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. [Analysis of recurrence and its influencing factors in patients with cervical HSIL within 24 months after LEEP].
Chen LM; Liu L; Tao X; He Y; Guo LP; Zhang HW; Zhou XR; Sui L
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2019 Aug; 54(8):534-540. PubMed ID: 31461810
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. [Relationship between various histological status of margins of LEEP and residual HSIL or worse at hysterectomy following conization].
Xiao YP; Tao X; Zhao CY; Qu YQ; Xie F; Ning Y
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2019 Jan; 54(1):19-23. PubMed ID: 30695901
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Can we predict surgical margin positivity while performing cervical excisional procedures?
Durmuş Y; Karalök A; Başaran D; Kamani MO; Boran N; Koç S; Turan AT
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2020 Jul; 40(5):666-672. PubMed ID: 31482755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Construction and Evaluation of a Clinical Prediction Scoring System for Positive Cervical Margins Under Colposcopy.
Zhu M; Yu M; Chen Z; Zhao W
Front Med (Lausanne); 2022; 9():807849. PubMed ID: 35295609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. The Appropriate of Cone Depth in Loop Electrical Excision Procedure (LEEP) for Negative Pathological Margin from High Grade Precancerous Lesion of Cervix, Retrospective Study.
Srijarusith N; Rodpenpear N
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2022 Feb; 23(2):659-664. PubMed ID: 35225479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. The role of endocervical curettage in detection and treatment of cervical canal lesions.
Lang L; Jia Y; Duan Z; Wu J; Luo M; Tian P
Histol Histopathol; 2022 Jan; 37(1):63-68. PubMed ID: 34755328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Margin Positivity and Persistent Disease After Leep for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.
Alukal AT; Rema P; Suchetha S; Dinesh D; Mathew A; Krishna KMJ; Somanathan T; Sivaranjith J
J Obstet Gynaecol India; 2021 Aug; 71(4):411-416. PubMed ID: 34566301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Diagnosis and Management of Adenocarcinoma in Situ: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology Evidence-Based Review and Recommendations.
Teoh D; Musa F; Salani R; Huh W; Jimenez E
Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Apr; 135(4):869-878. PubMed ID: 32168211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. TWENTY-YEAR EXPERIENCE WITH LARGE LOOP EXCISION OF THE TRANSFORMATION ZONE AT SESTRE MILOSRDNICE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CENTRE.
Butorac D; Škrtić B; Čukelj M; Kuna K; Djaković I
Acta Clin Croat; 2019 Sep; 58(3):463-466. PubMed ID: 31969758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Excisions of severe cervical dysplasia: Are there mandatory diameters of the cone that need to be considered?
Beyer DA; Rody A; Schmidt N; Cirkel C; Neumann K
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc; 2017 Dec; 18(4):185-189. PubMed ID: 29278231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Optimal cone size to predict positive surgical margins after cold knife conization (CKC) and the risk factors for residual disease.
Öz M; Çetinkaya N; Korkmaz E; Seçkin KD; Meydanlı MM; Güngör T
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc; 2016; 17(3):159-62. PubMed ID: 27651725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Is there any predictor for residual disease after cervical conization with positive surgical margins for HSIL or microinvasive cervical cancer?
Tasci T; Turan T; Ureyen I; Karalok A; Kalyoncu R; Boran N; Tulunay G
J Low Genit Tract Dis; 2015 Apr; 19(2):115-8. PubMed ID: 25259663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
