{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010820559062218215, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004508566275924256, 'mean_word_length': 5.379310344827586, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cold-knife conization versus the loop electrosurgical excision procedure for treatment of cervical dysplasia.

INTRODUCTION
Classical conization is a standard procedure for treatment of cervical lesions. Conization with loop diathermy is well established and lesions can be excised in more than 90% of cases.


OBJECTIVE
To compare two methods of conization for the treatment of cervical dysplasia.


METHOD
The study included 172 patients who had conization for diagnosed cervical dysplasia. A retrospective analysis was conducted on incidence of complications and presence of dysplasia on the specimen edges after classical conization compared to conization with loop diathermy. The possibilities for analyzing specimen edges were reviewed.


RESULTS
A significantly higher incidence of complications was found among patients who underwent classical conization compared to those who had the loop diathermy procedure. The loop procedure is sufficient for treatment of cervical dysplasias.


CONCLUSION
The authors suggest loop diathermy conization as the method of choice for treatment of cervical dysplasia.