You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Pregnancy outcome after cervical conisation: a retrospective cohort study in the Leuven University Hospital

  1. A van de Vijver1,
  2. W Poppe2,
  3. J Verguts2,
  4. M Arbyn3

Article first published online: 26 NOV 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02437.x

Issue

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Volume 117, Issue 3, pages 268–273, February 2010

Additional Information

How to Cite

van de Vijver, A., Poppe, W., Verguts, J. and Arbyn, M. (2010), Pregnancy outcome after cervical conisation: a retrospective cohort study in the Leuven University Hospital. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 117: 268–273. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02437.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Sint-Lucas, Brugge, Belgium

  2. 2

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven – Campus Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium

  3. 3

    Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium

*Prof Willy Poppe, University Hospitals Leuven – Campus Gasthuisberg, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email willy.poppe@uzleuven.be

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 12 JAN 2010
  2. Article first published online: 26 NOV 2009
  3. Accepted 6 October 2009. Published Online 26 November 2009.

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (87K)

Keywords:

  • Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia;
  • conisation;
  • prematurity

Please cite this paper as: van de Vijver A, Poppe W, Verguts J, Arbyn M. Pregnancy outcome after cervical conisation: a retrospective cohort study in the Leuven University Hospital. BJOG 2010;117:268–273.

Objective  To assess pregnancy outcome after conisation.

Design  Retrospective cohort study.

Setting  Belgium, data from a university hospital.

Population  Fifty-five pregnancies in 34 women after conisation, and 55 pregnancies in 54 women without a history of conisation or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).

Methods  Hospital data were reviewed and questionnaires were collected from 599 women who had a conisation in a 5-year period, among whom subsequent pregnancies were identified. The control group consisted of matched pregnancies of women without a history of conisation.

Main outcome measures  Gestational age at delivery, neonatal biometry, neonatal condition at birth.

Results  Numbers of sexual partners (4.6 ± 3.4 SD versus 2.5 ± 2.5 SD) and ex-smokers were significantly higher in the study group compared with the control group. Gestational age at delivery (266 ± 2 days versus 274 ± 9 days), neonatal head circumference (33.9 ± 2.5 cm, versus 34.6 ± 2.5 cm) and birthweight (3088 ± 754 g versus 3381 ± 430 g) were significantly lower in the study group compared with the control group. Numbers of preterm [<37 weeks; 14/55 (25%) versus 2/55 (4%); P = 0.002] and severe preterm (<34 weeks; 6/55 (11%) versus 0/55 (0%); P = 0.031] deliveries in the study group were significantly higher. There were no cases of perinatal mortality.

Conclusions  Conisation affects obstetrical outcome after conisation for CIN. Babies tend to be born earlier and are smaller. It is not clear whether this is related to the procedure or to factors linked with CIN.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (87K)