251 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31455147)
1. Post-conization follow-up of patients with CIN 2/3 with different amount of distance to negative cone biopsy margin: a retrospective cohort study.
Giray B; Kabaca-Kocakusak C; Guray-Uzun M; Akis S
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2020 Apr; 40(3):406-410. PubMed ID: 31455147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Study on high risk factors associated with positive margin of cervix conization in patient with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia].
Lu HX; Chen YX; Ni J; Wan XY; Lü WG; Xie X
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2009 Mar; 44(3):200-3. PubMed ID: 19570446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Importance of surgical margins in conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III.
Murta EF; Resende AV; Souza MA; Adad SJ; Salum R
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 1999 Nov; 263(1-2):42-4. PubMed ID: 10728628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical outcomes of cases with cervical dysplasia absent in cold knife conization specimens.
Baser E; Ozgu E; Erkilinc S; Yalcin H; Cetinkaya N; Sirvan L; Erkaya S; Gungor T
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2014 Jan; 14(11):6693-6. PubMed ID: 24377590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An Abnormal Precone Endocervical Curettage Result Is an Independent Risk Factor for Positive Margins in Conization Specimens.
An J; Lei H; Xie X; Sun P
Oncol Res Treat; 2020; 43(10):518-525. PubMed ID: 32772026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Predictors and clinical significance of the positive cone margin in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III patients.
Sun XG; Ma SQ; Zhang JX; Wu M
Chin Med J (Engl); 2009 Feb; 122(4):367-72. PubMed ID: 19302737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Minimal cold knife conization height for high-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion treatment.
Kliemann LM; Silva M; Reinheimer M; Rivoire WA; Capp E; Dos Reis R
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2012 Dec; 165(2):342-6. PubMed ID: 22948133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Outcome after conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III: relation with surgical margins, extension to the crypts and mitoses.
Maluf PJ; Adad SJ; Murta EF
Tumori; 2004; 90(5):473-7. PubMed ID: 15656332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Assessment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with colposcopic biopsy and efficacy of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP).
Duesing N; Schwarz J; Choschzick M; Jaenicke F; Gieseking F; Issa R; Mahner S; Woelber L
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2012 Dec; 286(6):1549-54. PubMed ID: 22865036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. High-grade CIN on cervical biopsy and predictors of the subsequent cone histology results in women undergoing immediate conization.
Giannella L; Mfuta K; Gardini G; Rubino T; Fodero C; Prandi S
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2015 Mar; 186():68-74. PubMed ID: 25656975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Predictors of recurrent dysplasia after a cervical loop electrocautery excision procedure for CIN-3: a study of margin, endocervical gland, and quadrant involvement.
Livasy CA; Maygarden SJ; Rajaratnam CT; Novotny DB
Mod Pathol; 1999 Mar; 12(3):233-8. PubMed ID: 10102607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. What is the value of pre-surgical variables in addition to cone dimensions in predicting cone margin status?
Giannella L; Di Giuseppe J; Prandi S; Delli Carpini G; Tsiroglou D; Ciavattini A
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2020 Jan; 244():180-184. PubMed ID: 31812841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Shimodaira-Taniguchi conization method: its utility and reliability.
Matsumura M; Ota T; Takeshima N; Takizawa K
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2010 Aug; 20(6):1025-30. PubMed ID: 20683412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reevaluation of negative cervical conizations: Frequency, diagnostic errors, risk factors and management.
Lorenset LC; Percicote AP; Munhos SHO; Zanine RM
Pathol Res Pract; 2024 May; 257():155283. PubMed ID: 38614053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Influence of training level on cervical cone size and resection margin status at conization: a retrospective study.
Montanari E; Grimm C; Schwameis R; Kuessel L; Polterauer S; Paternostro C; Husslein H
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2018 Jun; 297(6):1517-1523. PubMed ID: 29602979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Prognostic factors of cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions treated by cold knife conization with negative margin].
Meng QW; Qin ZH; Mao Y; Zhao XD
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2007 Jul; 42(7):457-9. PubMed ID: 17961334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Value of endocervical margin and high-risk human papillomavirus status after conization for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, and microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix.
Kong TW; Son JH; Chang SJ; Paek J; Lee Y; Ryu HS
Gynecol Oncol; 2014 Dec; 135(3):468-73. PubMed ID: 25284039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Predictors of high-grade residual disease after repeat conization in patients with positive surgical margins.
Minareci Y; Ak N; Tosun OA; Sozen H; Disci R; Topuz S; Salihoglu MY
Ginekol Pol; 2022; 93(12):962-967. PubMed ID: 35894500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Laser conization: the results of treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
Andersen ES; Pedersen B; Nielsen K
Gynecol Oncol; 1994 Aug; 54(2):201-4. PubMed ID: 8063246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Management of stage Ia1 squamous cervical cancer and the importance of excision margins: a retrospective study of long-term outcome after 25 years of follow-up.
Papakonstantinou K; Kyrgiou M; Lyons D; Soutter WP; Ghaem-Maghami S
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):625.e1-6. PubMed ID: 24949540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
