Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
You searched for:"Kazue Panetta"
We found (2) results for your search.Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2002;24(5):315-320
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032002000500005
Purpose: to study the association between the evaluation or not of the male partner and relapses in women treated for HPV lesions. Methods: a reconstituted cohort study with 144 women with HPV lesions and whose partners had been evaluated, compared with 288 women whose partners had not been examined, controlled regarding date of attendance, age, lesion degree and treatment, attended between July 1993 and March 2000. We evaluated similarity between the groups, the association between the evaluation or not of the partners or the diagnosis of lesions with the occurrence and relapse lesion degree in the women and the disease-free interval (DFI). Results: the groups were similar regarding the control variables. Relapses occurred in 9.0 % of the women whose partners had been evaluated and in 5.9% of those whose partners had not been evaluated (p=0.23). When lesions were diagnosed in the men, 12.5% of their partners had relapses, against 7.3% of the women whose partners had no lesions (p=0.23), but there was no correlation with the relapse lesion degree and DFI. When the men reported a time of monogamous conjugal relationship <12 months, we observed 14.9% relapses in women, against 6.2% for the women whose partners reported a longer time (p=0.08). Conclusions: evaluation of the man did not decrease the relapse risk of HPV lesions in his partner. The presence of lesions in the male partners did not correlate with the occurrence and relapse degree in women and DFI. This study does not support the hypothesis that nonevaluated men would be an important cause of relapses in their partners.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2002;24(5):315-320
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032002000500005
Purpose: to study the association between the evaluation or not of the male partner and relapses in women treated for HPV lesions. Methods: a reconstituted cohort study with 144 women with HPV lesions and whose partners had been evaluated, compared with 288 women whose partners had not been examined, controlled regarding date of attendance, age, lesion degree and treatment, attended between July 1993 and March 2000. We evaluated similarity between the groups, the association between the evaluation or not of the partners or the diagnosis of lesions with the occurrence and relapse lesion degree in the women and the disease-free interval (DFI). Results: the groups were similar regarding the control variables. Relapses occurred in 9.0 % of the women whose partners had been evaluated and in 5.9% of those whose partners had not been evaluated (p=0.23). When lesions were diagnosed in the men, 12.5% of their partners had relapses, against 7.3% of the women whose partners had no lesions (p=0.23), but there was no correlation with the relapse lesion degree and DFI. When the men reported a time of monogamous conjugal relationship <12 months, we observed 14.9% relapses in women, against 6.2% for the women whose partners reported a longer time (p=0.08). Conclusions: evaluation of the man did not decrease the relapse risk of HPV lesions in his partner. The presence of lesions in the male partners did not correlate with the occurrence and relapse degree in women and DFI. This study does not support the hypothesis that nonevaluated men would be an important cause of relapses in their partners.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2000;22(2):65-70
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032000000200002
Purpose: to evaluate conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasms (CIN), the importance of the margins and follow-up of these women. Methods: 95 women who underwent conization by LEEP for CIN and microinvasive carcinoma from January 1996 to December 1997 were evaluated. For statistical analysis, we used the kappa agreement coefficient and the tendency test of Cochran Armitage. Results: among 63 cases who underwent colposcopically directed biopsy before the conization, the cone presented the same grade of lesion in 20 and no residual disease in 8. The cone lesion presented a higher grade in 24 cases and one of them was a microinvasive carcinoma. Among the 25 women who underwent the cone biopsy with a previous biopsy suggestive of cervicitis or CIN 1, 56% had CIN 2 or 3 in the cone. Among the 32 women without previous biopsy, 15 had CIN 2 or 3, and four had microinvasive carcinoma in the cone. Regarding the margins of the cone, 25 cases presented some grade of CIN in the endocervical margins and 2/10 who underwent a second procedure presented residual disease on histological analysis. Among the 70 women with free cone margins, 2/4 who underwent a second procedure had residual disease on histological analysis. Conclusion: conization by LEEP without previous directed biopsy depends on the experience of the colposcopist. The second resection after LEEP for the diagnosis and treatment of CIN depends not only on the presence of disease in the cone margins but also on the follow-up. A second histological analysis is recommended in cases with microinvasive carcinoma and glandular lesion and affected margins.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2000;22(2):65-70
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032000000200002
Purpose: to evaluate conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasms (CIN), the importance of the margins and follow-up of these women. Methods: 95 women who underwent conization by LEEP for CIN and microinvasive carcinoma from January 1996 to December 1997 were evaluated. For statistical analysis, we used the kappa agreement coefficient and the tendency test of Cochran Armitage. Results: among 63 cases who underwent colposcopically directed biopsy before the conization, the cone presented the same grade of lesion in 20 and no residual disease in 8. The cone lesion presented a higher grade in 24 cases and one of them was a microinvasive carcinoma. Among the 25 women who underwent the cone biopsy with a previous biopsy suggestive of cervicitis or CIN 1, 56% had CIN 2 or 3 in the cone. Among the 32 women without previous biopsy, 15 had CIN 2 or 3, and four had microinvasive carcinoma in the cone. Regarding the margins of the cone, 25 cases presented some grade of CIN in the endocervical margins and 2/10 who underwent a second procedure presented residual disease on histological analysis. Among the 70 women with free cone margins, 2/4 who underwent a second procedure had residual disease on histological analysis. Conclusion: conization by LEEP without previous directed biopsy depends on the experience of the colposcopist. The second resection after LEEP for the diagnosis and treatment of CIN depends not only on the presence of disease in the cone margins but also on the follow-up. A second histological analysis is recommended in cases with microinvasive carcinoma and glandular lesion and affected margins.