Large loop excision of the transformation zone.

Abstract

During the early 1990s, the technique of LLETZ has acquired widespread approval throughout much of the colposcopic community, and its advantages over destructive methods of treatment have been described by several authors. 1. It allows for histologic audit of the colposcopic diagnosis. 2. It allows histopathologic examination to rule out microinvasion. 3. It allows excision of the dysplastic lesion and the transformation zone, which may be confirmed histologically. 4. It may be performed at the first (assessment) colposcopic examination. 5. It may be adapted to treat all cases of CIN, irrespective of the size and site of the transformation zone. 6. It is an easily learned technique. 7. It uses inexpensive, readily available equipment and has low operating costs. 8. It is usually an office or outpatient procedure performed using local anesthesia. The last five of these eight advantages are also potential disadvantages of the technique that may combine to increase the morbidity of the procedure. Women may be treated more easily and at a lower threshold of abnormality in the office with local anesthesia and with transformation zones of almost any dimension, situated on the ectocervix in the endocervical canal or both. If more women are treated (at a lower threshold of suspected abnormality), then procedure-related morbidity will increase. Because the technique allows sufficient flexibility to accommodate transformation zones of every site and dimension, it is inevitable that women who would otherwise have had a cone biopsy will now have a LLETZ procedure. The morbidity of a cone biopsy (LLETZ, laser, or cold knife) is related to the volume, and also probably the amount of endocervical tissue excised. It is important that the morbidity associated with removal of a long endocervical transformation zone be recognized as a consequence of the size and site of the transformation zone, rather than of the choice of excisional technique. EASE OF USE The method is technically straightforward and undemanding to an experienced and relatively dexterous colposcopist. COST When compared with the laser technique, the method is less expensive. However, the other destructive modalities are equally inexpensive (cold coagulation, cryocautery, and radical diathermy). Many of the electrosurgical units that are used for LLETZ also may be used for a variety of procedures in gynecology. EFFECTIVENESS It is evident that a method of excising the transformation zone will have the same likelihood of successfully treating women with CIN as do the destructive techniques, and this has been supported by the published series of patients treated by LLETZ. It is also true that LLETZ is unlikely to significantly improve on the success/failure rates of treatment achieved by the protagonists of each destructive method of treatment. This is because the success/failure rates of destructive methods are high when performed by experts. However, women with CIN cannot always be treated by experts of individual destructive techniques. Perhaps a more clinically important question is whether LLETZ is associated with a superior success/failure rate compared with destructive methods in which each are performed by the nonspecialized practicing gynecologist.