Dataset Information

Video colposcopy versus headlight for large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ): a randomised trial

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare resected cone mass and resection margin status when performing Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ) using video colposcopy (LLETZ-VC) versus a headlight (LLETZ-HL) in women with cervical dysplasia.

Methods

Prospective, randomised trial (monocentric) at a specialised cervical dysplasia unit in a University Hospital. Women with a biopsy-proven CIN2 + or persisting CIN1 or diagnostic LLETZ were recruited and randomised. LLETZ was performed either under video colposcopic vision or using a standard surgical headlight. The primary endpoint was resected cone mass. Secondary endpoints were the rate of involved margins, fragmentation of the specimen, procedure time, time to complete haemostasis (TCH), blood loss, pain, intra- and postoperative complications, and surgeon preference.

Results

LLETZ-VC and LLETZ-HL (109 women each) had comparable cone masses (1.57 [0.98–2.37] vs. 1.67 [1.15–2.46] grams; P = 0.454). TCH was significantly shorter in the LLETZ-VC arm (60 [41–95.2] vs. 90 [47.2–130.2] seconds; P = 0.008). There was no statistically significant difference in involved resection margins (6/87 [6.5%] vs. 16/101 [13.7%], P = 0.068) and postoperative complications (13/82 [13.7%] vs. 22/72 [23.4%], P = 0.085). Patient-reported outcomes favoured LLETZ-VC with a lower use of analgesics (6/80 [7.0%] vs. 17/87 [16.3%]; P = 0.049). However, LLETZ-VC was more difficult to perform with significantly lower ratings for handling (7 [5–9] vs. 9 [8–10]; P < 0.001) and general satisfaction (7.5 [5–9] vs. 10 [8–10]; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Intraoperative video colposcopy for LLETZ has minimal benefits at the cost of surgeons’ satisfaction.

Clinical trial registration

NCT04326049 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

SUBMITTER: Rezniczek G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8606170 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe management of preinvasive cervical lesions has the objective to ensure the absence of invasive lesions and to prevent progression to cancer. Excisional procedures have been preferred to treat these lesions as they report the presence of unsuspected invasive lesions and the status of surgical margins, allowing inferring full excision when such are free of disease. The purpose of this study is to determine whether Straight Wire Excision of the Transformation Zone (SWETZ) is a better alternative than Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ-cone) as a type 3 excision of the Transformation Zone (TZ) to reduce incomplete excision and concerning other outcomes of surgical interest.MethodRandomized controlled trial including women who needed type 3 excision of the TZ referred to a colposcopy clinic after cytological screening between January 2008 thru December 2011. The interventions were performed using local anesthesia and sedation in an inpatient basis by different experienced surgeons. The study enrolled and randomized 164 women, of which 82 were allocated to each group. After exclusions, 78 remained in SWETZ and 76 in LLETZ-cone groups for the analysis of outcomes of surgical interest and 52 and 54, respectively, for the margins analysis.ResultsThere was an even distribution between the groups after randomization and exclusions, concerning mean age, parity, current smoking, prior cytological diagnosis and histopathological diagnosis obtained in cone specimen even after exclusions. We observed significantly higher risk of compromised or damaged endocervical margin in specimens resulting from the LLETZ-cone in relation to SWETZ (RR 1.72, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.6), with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 26.4% (95% CI: 8.1 to 44.8) for patients operated by SWETZ. The specimens obtained by SWETZ showed less fragmentation (ARR = 19.8%, 95% CI: 10.3 - 29.3%), but the procedure took longer. There were complications in 5.6% of the procedures, with no significant differences between the groups.ConclusionThis study showed a lower proportion of compromised or damaged endocervical surgical margin in specimens resulting from SWETZ in relation to LLETZ-cone. SWETZ demonstrated to be more efficient than LLETZ-cone concerning less fragmentation of the specimen obtained. However, it accounted for longer surgical time. Both techniques showed morbidityTrial registrationNumber at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01929993 (June 10, 2012).

Project description:BackgroundElectrosurgical excisions are common procedures for treating cervical dysplasia and are often seen as minor surgeries. Yet, thorough training of this intervention is required, as there are considerable consequences of inadequate resections, e.g. preterm birth, the risk of recurrence, injuries and many more. Unfortunately, there is a lack of sufficiently validated possibilities of simulating electrosurgeries, which focus on high fidelity and patient safety.MethodsA novel 3D printed simulator for examination and electrosurgical treatment of dysplastic areas of the cervix was compared with a conventional simulator. Sixty medical students experienced a seminar about cervical dysplasia. Group A underwent the seminar with the conventional and Group B with the novel simulator. After a theoretical introduction, the students were randomly assigned by picking a ticket from a box and went on to perform the hands-on training with their respective simulator. Each student first obtained colposcopic examination training. Then he or she performed five electrosurgical excisions (each). This was assessed with a validated score, to visualize their learning curve. Furthermore, adequate and inadequate resections and contacts between electrosurgical loop and vagina or speculum were counted. Both groups also assessed the seminar and their simulator with 18 questions (Likert-scales, 1-10, 1 = strongly agree / very good, 10 = strongly disagree / very bad). Group B additionally assessed the novel simulator with four questions (similar Likert-scales, 1-10).ResultsNine of 18 questions showed statistically significant differences favoring Group B (p < 0.05). Group B also achieved more adequate R0-resections and less contacts between electrosurgical loop and vagina or speculum. The learning curves of the performed resections favored the novel simulator of Group B without statistically significant differences. The four questions focusing on certain aspects of the novel simulator indicate high appreciation of the students with a mean score of 1.6 points.ConclusionThe presented novel simulator shows several advantages compared to the existing model. Thus, novice gynecologists can be supported with a higher quality of simulation to improve their training and thereby patient safety.

Project description:Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) is one of the most common procedures in operative gynecology and it is a routine part of the surgical training program of residents. There is, however, no established and standardized method of teaching residents how to perform LLETZ. Here, we present a surgical training model and assessed the improvement of surgical skills during repeated hands-on trainings of LLETZ in this model.Surgical novices and experts were recruited and were shown a LLETZ training video and then performed 3 LLETZ training sessions on consecutive days. Surgical skills were assessed by Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS). Global rating scale (GRS), confidence (CON), fragmentation rate (FR), performance time (PT), and OSATS scores were calculated. Intra- and interobserver variabilities were determined. The construct validity of OSATS was assessed comparing metric scores of novices with those of experts.Sixty-eight probands (58 novices, 10 experts) were recruited. GRS, 2.3 ± 1.3 (median ± SD) versus 1.4 ± 0.6, P < .001; CON, 2.7 ± 0.9 versus 1.6 ± 0.6, P < .001; FR, 81% versus 100%, P < .001; PT, 152 ± 33 versus 120 ± 27 seconds, P = .006; and OSATS scores, 18.8 ± 1.3 versus 19.1 ± 1.1, P = .16 of novices improved from session 1 to session 3. OSATS showed construct validity with metric scores (GRS, 1.1 ± 0.3 vs 2.3 ± 0.8, P < .001; CON, 1.0 ± 0.0 vs 2.7 ± 0.9, P < .001; PT 125 ± 30 vs 152 ± 33 seconds, P = .02; OSATS scores, 19.6 ± 0.7 vs. 18.8 ± 1.3, P = .02) reliably discriminating between experts and novices. Intra- and interobserver variabilities across probands were 0.99 ± 0.03 and 0.64 ± 0.10, respectively. OSATS scores were independent of handedness, sex, and regular sports activity in univariate and multivariate analyses.Repeated hands-on trainings improve surgical performance of LLETZ in a surgical training model with construct validity.

Project description:AimsThe role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer has been questioned. 3D laparoscopic systems are suggested to aid optimal surgical performance but have not been evaluated in advanced procedures. We hypothesised that stereoscopic imaging could improve the performance of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).MethodsA multicentre developmental randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D laparoscopic TME was performed (ISRCTN59485808). Trial surgeons were colorectal consultants that had completed their TME proficiency curve and underwent stereoscopic visual testing. Patients requiring elective laparoscopic TME with curative intent were centrally randomised (1:1) to 2D or 3D using Karl Storz IMAGE1 S D3-Link™ and 10-mm TIPCAM®1S 3D passive polarising laparoscopic systems. Outcomes were enacted adverse events as assessed by the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique, intraoperative data, 30-day patient outcomes, histopathological specimen assessment and surgeon cognitive load.Results88 patients were included. There were no differences in patient or tumour demographics, surgeon stereopsis, case difficulty, cognitive load, operative time, blood loss or conversion between the trial arms. 1377 intraoperative adverse events were identified (median 18 per case, IQR 14-21, range 2-49) with no differences seen between the 2D and 3D arms (18 (95% CI 17-21) vs. 17 (95% CI 16-19), p?=?0.437). 3D laparoscopy had non-significantly higher mesorectal fascial plane resections (94 vs. 77%, p?=?0.059; OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.05-1.16)) but equal lymph node yield and circumferential margin distance and involvement. 30-day morbidity, anastomotic leak, re-operation, length of stay and readmission rates were equal between the 2D and 3D arms.ConclusionFeasibility of performing multicentre 3D laparoscopic multicentre trials of specialist performed complex procedures is shown. 3D imaging did not alter the number of intraoperative adverse events; however, a potential improvement in mesorectal specimen quality was observed and should form the focus of future 3D laparoscopic TME trials.

Project description:BackgroundCryotherapy is standard practice for treating patients with cervical precancer in see-and-treat programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Because of logistical difficulties with cryotherapy (eg, the necessity, costs, and supply chain difficulties of refrigerant gas; equipment failure; and treatment duration >10 min), a battery-operated thermal ablator that is lightweight and portable has been developed. We aimed to compare thermal ablation using the new device with cryotherapy.MethodsWe report the pilot phase of a randomised controlled trial in routine screen-and-treat clinics providing cervical screening using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) in Lusaka, Zambia. We recruited non-pregnant women, aged 25 years or older, who were eligible for ablative therapy. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to thermal ablation, cryotherapy, or large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ), using computer-generated allocation. The randomisation was concealed but the nurses providing treatment and the participants were unmasked. Thermal ablation was achieved using the Liger thermal ablator (using 1-5 overlapping applications of the probe heated to 100°C, each application lasting for 40 s), cryotherapy was carried out using the double-freeze technique (freeze for 3 min, thaw for 5 min, and freeze again for 3 min), and LLETZ (using a large loop driven by an electro-surgical unit to excise the transformation zone) was done under local anaesthesia. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as either human papillomavirus (HPV) type-specific clearance among participants who were positive for the same HPV type at baseline, or a negative VIA test at 6-month follow-up, if the baseline HPV test was negative. Per protocol analyses were done. Enrolment for the full trial is ongoing. Here, we present findings from a prespecified pilot phase of the full trial. The final analysis of the full trial will assess non-inferiority of the groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02956239.FindingsBetween Aug 2, 2017, and Jan 15, 2019, 750 participants were randomly assigned (250 per group). 206 (84%) participants in the cryotherapy group, 197 (81%) in the thermal ablation group, and 204 (84%) in the LLETZ group attended the 6-month follow-up examination. Treatment success was reported in 120 (60%) of 200 participants in the cryotherapy group, 123 (64%) of 192 in the thermal ablation group, and 134 (67%) of 199 in the LLETZ group (p=0·31). Few participants complained of moderate to severe pain in any group immediately after the procedure (six [2%] of 250 in the cryotherapy group, four [2%] of 250 in the thermal ablation group, and five [2%] of 250 in the LLETZ group) and 2 weeks after the procedure (one [<1%] of 241 in the cryotherapy group, none of 242 in the thermal ablation group, and two [<1%] of 237 in the LLETZ group). None of the participants reported any complication requiring medical consultation or admission to hospital.InterpretationResults from this pilot study preliminarily suggest that thermal ablation has similar treatment success to cryotherapy, without the practical disadvantages of providing cryotherapy in an LMIC. However, the study was not powered to establish the similarity between the techniques, and results from the ongoing randomised controlled trial are need to confirm these results.FundingUS National Institutes of Health.