{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,21]],"date-time":"2025-05-21T18:28:25Z","timestamp":1747852105890,"version":"3.37.3"},"reference-count":52,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,13]],"date-time":"2019-12-13T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1576195200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,13]],"date-time":"2019-12-13T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1576195200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Sci Rep"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:p>This study is to compare the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing cold knife conization (CKC) versus electrosurgical conization (ESC). Among 10,086 patients in a single center admitted between January 2000 and January 2019, CKS or ESC was used for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) or more severe lesions. Modified Sturmdorf or Figure-of-eight sutures were applied after conization. A regression model was used to determine the risk factors for margin involvement and short-term post-operative complications. In total, 7275 (72.1%) and 2811 (27.9%) patients underwent CKC and ESC, respectively. Women who underwent ESC were older and had a higher risk of margin involvement and endocervical glandular involvement than those who underwent CKC in univariate analysis. However, in the multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.032, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.025\u20131.038) and glandular involvement (OR 2.196, 95% CI 1.915\u20132.517) were the independent risk factors associated with margin involvement, but the incision methods used caused no significant difference. Modified Sturmdorf sutures and Figure-of-eight sutures were applied in 3520 (34.9%) and 6566 (65.1%) patients, respectively. The modified Sturmdorf sutures was the only risk factor associated with wound hemorrhage (OR 1.852, 95% CI 1.111\u20133.085) after adjusted with other epidemiological and surgical factors. Various incision or suture methods had similar risk of cervical stenosis. Therefore, ESC is an acceptable alternative to CKC for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical lesions regarding the pathologic accuracy and integrity, and short-term safety. Modified Sturmdorf sutures increased the risk of wound hemorrhage compared with Figure-of-eight sutures.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1038\/s41598-019-55786-4","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,13]],"date-time":"2019-12-13T11:04:00Z","timestamp":1576235040000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["The effects of different instruments and suture methods of conization for cervical lesions"],"prefix":"10.1038","volume":"9","author":[{"given":"Xiaoyu","family":"Wang","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-8723-3461","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Lei","family":"Li","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Yalan","family":"Bi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Huanwen","family":"Wu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-8601-7510","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Ming","family":"Wu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Jinghe","family":"Lang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,13]]},"reference":[{"key":"55786_CR1","unstructured":"World Health Organization, Cervical cancer. https:\/\/www.who.int\/cancer\/prevention\/diagnosis-screening\/cervical-cancer\/en\/. Accessed on November 24, 2019."},{"key":"55786_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"169","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(18)32470-X","volume":"393","author":"PA Cohen","year":"2019","unstructured":"Cohen, P. A. et al. Cervical cancer. Lancet. 393, 169\u2013182 (2019).","journal-title":"Lancet."},{"key":"55786_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"641","DOI":"10.1002\/ijc.26042","volume":"130","author":"JF Shi","year":"2012","unstructured":"Shi, J. F. et al. The burden of cervical cancer in China: synthesis of the evidence. Int J Cancer. 130, 641\u2013652 (2012).","journal-title":"Int J Cancer."},{"key":"55786_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"407","DOI":"10.1111\/IGC.0b013e3181a1a297","volume":"19","author":"SJ Lee","year":"2009","unstructured":"Lee, S. J. et al. Conization using electrosurgical conization and cold coagulation for international federation of gynecology and obstetrics stage IA1 squamous cell carcinomas of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 19, 407\u2013411 (2009).","journal-title":"Int J Gynecol Cancer."},{"key":"55786_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"252","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1447-0756.2005.00279.x","volume":"31","author":"Y Akiba","year":"2005","unstructured":"Akiba, Y. et al. Is laser conization adequate for therapeutic excision of adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 31, 252\u2013256 (2005).","journal-title":"J Obstet Gynaecol Res."},{"key":"55786_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"185","DOI":"10.3109\/13645706.2010.532586","volume":"20","author":"C Kartsiounis","year":"2011","unstructured":"Kartsiounis, C. et al. Comparison of the ultrasonic scalpel to CO(2) laser in cervical conization. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 20, 185\u2013188 (2011).","journal-title":"Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol."},{"key":"55786_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"24","DOI":"10.1097\/LGT.0000000000000444","volume":"23","author":"L Chen","year":"2019","unstructured":"Chen, L. et al. Risk Factor Analysis of Persistent High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion After Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure Conization. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 23, 24\u201327 (2019).","journal-title":"J Low Genit Tract Dis."},{"key":"55786_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"266","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijgo.2015.07.026","volume":"132","author":"N Santesso","year":"2016","unstructured":"Santesso, N. et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of benefits and harms of cryotherapy, LEEP, and cold knife conization to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 132, 266\u2013271 (2016).","journal-title":"Int J Gynaecol Obstet."},{"key":"55786_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"252","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijgo.2015.07.038","volume":"132","author":"N Santesso","year":"2016","unstructured":"Santesso, N. et al. World Health Organization Guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2-3 and screen-and-treat strategies to prevent cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 132, 252\u2013258 (2016).","journal-title":"Int J Gynaecol Obstet."},{"key":"55786_CR10","first-page":"637","volume":"10","author":"S Panna","year":"2009","unstructured":"Panna, S. et al. Positive margin prevalence and risk factors with cervical specimens obtained from loop electrosurgical excision procedures and cold knife conization. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 10, 637\u2013640 (2009).","journal-title":"Asian Pac J Cancer Prev."},{"key":"55786_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"129","DOI":"10.1097\/LGT.0000000000000287","volume":"21","author":"SA El-Nashar","year":"2017","unstructured":"El-Nashar, S. A. et al. Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure Instead of Cold-Knife Conization for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Women With Unsatisfactory Colposcopic Examinations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 21, 129\u2013136 (2017).","journal-title":"J Low Genit Tract Dis."},{"key":"55786_CR12","first-page":"257","volume":"33","author":"SY Zeng","year":"2012","unstructured":"Zeng, S. Y. et al. Comparison of the efficacy and complications of different surgical methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 33, 257\u2013260 (2012).","journal-title":"Eur J Gynaecol Oncol."},{"key":"55786_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"258","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ygyno.2015.02.024","volume":"137","author":"A Munro","year":"2015","unstructured":"Munro, A. et al. Comparison of cold knife cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision procedure in the management of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: What is the gold standard? Gynecol Oncol. 137, 258\u2013263 (2015).","journal-title":"Gynecol Oncol."},{"key":"55786_CR14","first-page":"33","volume":"47","author":"J Fanning","year":"2002","unstructured":"Fanning, J. et al. Cold knife conization vs. LEEP. Are they the same procedure? J Reprod Med. 47, 33\u201335 (2002).","journal-title":"J Reprod Med."},{"key":"55786_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"177","DOI":"10.1097\/LGT.0b013e3181fee61d","volume":"15","author":"R Malapati","year":"2011","unstructured":"Malapati, R. et al. Factors influencing persistence or recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after loop electrosurgical excision procedure. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 15, 177\u2013179 (2011).","journal-title":"J Low Genit Tract Dis."},{"key":"55786_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"43","DOI":"10.1097\/LGT.0000000000000439","volume":"23","author":"M Akazawa","year":"2019","unstructured":"Akazawa, M. et al. Comparison of Electrosurgical Devices for Cervical Conization: Novel Monopolar Scalpel (VIO) Versus Ultrasonic Scalpel. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 23, 43\u201347 (2019).","journal-title":"J Low Genit Tract Dis."},{"key":"55786_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"103","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijgo.2009.02.012","volume":"105","author":"S Pecorelli","year":"2009","unstructured":"Pecorelli, S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 105, 103\u2013104 (2009).","journal-title":"Int J Gynaecol Obstet."},{"key":"55786_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1091","DOI":"10.1016\/S0002-9378(16)35093-1","volume":"88","author":"A Bielecki","year":"1964","unstructured":"Bielecki, A. Modification of the Suture in the Sturmdorf Operation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 88, 1091\u20131092 (1964).","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol."},{"key":"55786_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"175","DOI":"10.1097\/LGT.0b013e31824ca9d5","volume":"16","author":"D Saslow","year":"2012","unstructured":"Saslow, D. et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 16, 175\u2013204 (2012).","journal-title":"J Low Genit Tract Dis."},{"key":"55786_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1206","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1447-0756.2012.01847.x","volume":"38","author":"G Kir","year":"2012","unstructured":"Kir, G. et al. Endocervical glandular involvement, positive endocervical surgical margin and multicentricity are more often associated with high-grade than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 38, 1206\u20131210 (2012).","journal-title":"J Obstet Gynaecol Res."},{"key":"55786_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0131790","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0131790","volume":"10","author":"L Xiang","year":"2015","unstructured":"Xiang, L. et al. Conization Using an Electrosurgical Knife for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Microinvasive Carcinoma. PLoS One. 10, e0131790 (2015).","journal-title":"PLoS One."},{"key":"55786_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2016.03.021","volume":"201","author":"A Ayhan","year":"2016","unstructured":"Ayhan, A. et al. Risk factors for residual disease after cervical conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 and positive surgical margins. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 201, 1\u20136 (2016).","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol."},{"key":"55786_CR23","first-page":"663","volume":"47","author":"XI Wang","year":"2017","unstructured":"Wang, X. I. et al. Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure vs. Cold Knife Cone in Treatment of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia: Review of 447 Cases. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 47, 663\u2013667 (2017).","journal-title":"Ann Clin Lab Sci."},{"key":"55786_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3907","DOI":"10.2147\/OTT.S108832","volume":"9","author":"YM Jiang","year":"2016","unstructured":"Jiang, Y. M. et al. Meta-analysis of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Onco Targets Ther. 9, 3907\u20133915 (2016).","journal-title":"Onco Targets Ther."},{"key":"55786_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e12640","DOI":"10.1097\/MD.0000000000012640","volume":"97","author":"K Kigure","year":"2018","unstructured":"Kigure, K. et al. An electrical scalpel conization versus Shimodaira-Taniguchi conization procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Medicine (Baltimore). 97, e12640 (2018).","journal-title":"Medicine (Baltimore)."},{"key":"55786_CR26","first-page":"691","volume":"25","author":"D Papoutsis","year":"2011","unstructured":"Papoutsis, D. et al. Cervical cone measurements and residual disease in LLETZ conisation for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. In Vivo. 25, 691\u2013695 (2011).","journal-title":"In Vivo."},{"key":"55786_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"163","DOI":"10.1159\/000345864","volume":"75","author":"D Papoutsis","year":"2013","unstructured":"Papoutsis, D. et al. Appropriate cone dimensions to achieve negative excision margins after large loop excision of transformation zone in the uterine cervix for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 75, 163\u2013168 (2013).","journal-title":"Gynecol Obstet Invest."},{"key":"55786_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"552","DOI":"10.1111\/1471-0528.13200","volume":"122","author":"MJ Camargo","year":"2015","unstructured":"Camargo, M. J. et al. Large loop versus straight-wire excision of the transformation zone for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial of electrosurgical techniques. BJOG. 122, 552\u2013557 (2015).","journal-title":"BJOG."},{"key":"55786_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"39","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ygyno.2007.05.014","volume":"107","author":"JY Park","year":"2007","unstructured":"Park, J. Y. et al. Risk factors predicting residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III and microinvasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 107, 39\u201344 (2007).","journal-title":"Gynecol Oncol."},{"key":"55786_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"185","DOI":"10.1111\/aogs.12025","volume":"92","author":"HS Bae","year":"2013","unstructured":"Bae, H. S. et al. The appropriate cone depth to avoid endocervical margin involvement is dependent on age and disease severity. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 92, 185\u2013192 (2013).","journal-title":"Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand."},{"issue":"625","key":"55786_CR31","first-page":"e621","volume":"211","author":"K Papakonstantinou","year":"2014","unstructured":"Papakonstantinou, K. et al. Management of stage Ia1 squamous cervical cancer and the importance of excision margins: a retrospective study of long-term outcome after 25 years of follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 211(625), e621\u2013626 (2014).","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol."},{"key":"55786_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"240","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ygyno.2005.12.029","volume":"102","author":"CS Nagi","year":"2006","unstructured":"Nagi, C. S. et al. Endocervical glandular involvement is associated with high-grade SIL. Gynecol Oncol. 102, 240\u2013243 (2006).","journal-title":"Gynecol Oncol."},{"key":"55786_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"345","DOI":"10.1016\/j.anndiagpath.2013.04.002","volume":"17","author":"N Guducu","year":"2013","unstructured":"Guducu, N. et al. Endocervical glandular involvement, multicentricity, and extent of the disease are features of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Ann Diagn Pathol. 17, 345\u2013346 (2013).","journal-title":"Ann Diagn Pathol."},{"key":"55786_CR34","first-page":"828","volume":"95","author":"E Paraskevaidis","year":"2000","unstructured":"Paraskevaidis, E. et al. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after large loop excision with clear margins. Obstet Gynecol. 95, 828\u2013831 (2000).","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol."},{"key":"55786_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"280","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1447-0756.2012.01943.x","volume":"39","author":"M Kodampur","year":"2013","unstructured":"Kodampur, M. et al. Endocervical crypt involvement by high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after large loop excision of transformation zone: do we need a different follow-up strategy? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 39, 280\u2013286 (2013).","journal-title":"J Obstet Gynaecol Res."},{"key":"55786_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"343","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1479-828X.2008.00853.x","volume":"48","author":"C Dane","year":"2008","unstructured":"Dane, C. et al. Haemostasis after cold-knife conisation: a randomised prospective trial comparing cerclage suture versus electro-cauterization. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 48, 343\u2013347 (2008).","journal-title":"Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol."},{"key":"55786_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"749","DOI":"10.1111\/jog.13273","volume":"43","author":"M Furugori","year":"2017","unstructured":"Furugori, M. et al. Short- and long-term complications and the impact on quality of life after cervical conization by harmonic scalpel. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 43, 749\u2013757 (2017).","journal-title":"J Obstet Gynaecol Res."},{"key":"55786_CR38","first-page":"1009","volume":"76","author":"GB Kristensen","year":"1990","unstructured":"Kristensen, G. B. et al. A randomized trial comparing two methods of cold knife conization with laser conization. Obstet Gynecol. 76, 1009\u20131013 (1990).","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol."},{"key":"55786_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Castillo A. C., et al. Comparing 3 Suture Techniques After Muscle Laceration Repair. Hand (N Y). 1558944719837021 (2019).","DOI":"10.1177\/1558944719837021"},{"key":"55786_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"956","DOI":"10.1253\/circj.CJ-17-1213","volume":"82","author":"M Okada","year":"2018","unstructured":"Okada, M. et al. Efficacy and Safety of Figure-of-Eight Suture for Hemostasis After Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation. Circ J. 82, 956\u2013964 (2018).","journal-title":"Circ J."},{"key":"55786_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"7","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2016.11.018","volume":"210","author":"Z Tsafrir","year":"2017","unstructured":"Tsafrir, Z. et al. Long-term outcomes for different vaginal cuff closure techniques in robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 210, 7\u201312 (2017).","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol."},{"key":"55786_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"209","DOI":"10.1590\/S1516-31802008000400002","volume":"126","author":"AC Monteiro","year":"2008","unstructured":"Monteiro, A. C. et al. Cervical stenosis following electrosurgical conization. Sao Paulo Med J. 126, 209\u2013214 (2008).","journal-title":"Sao Paulo Med J."},{"key":"55786_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"887","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-009-1205-y","volume":"281","author":"K Nasu","year":"2010","unstructured":"Nasu, K. et al. Management of severe cervical stenosis after conization by detention of nylon threads tied up to intrauterine contraceptive device. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 281, 887\u2013889 (2010).","journal-title":"Arch Gynecol Obstet."},{"key":"55786_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"921","DOI":"10.1007\/s10147-017-1124-z","volume":"22","author":"Y Tanaka","year":"2017","unstructured":"Tanaka, Y. et al. Predictors for recurrent\/persistent high-grade intraepithelial lesions and cervical stenosis after therapeutic conization: a retrospective analysis of 522 cases. Int J Clin Oncol. 22, 921\u2013926 (2017).","journal-title":"Int J Clin Oncol."},{"key":"55786_CR45","first-page":"327","volume":"37","author":"K Hasegawa","year":"2016","unstructured":"Hasegawa, K. et al. The problems of cervical conization for postmenopausal patients. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 37, 327\u2013331 (2016).","journal-title":"Eur J Gynaecol Oncol."},{"key":"55786_CR46","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"g6223","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.g6223","volume":"349","author":"A Castanon","year":"2014","unstructured":"Castanon, A. et al. Risk of preterm delivery with increasing depth of excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: nested case-control study. BMJ. 349, g6223 (2014).","journal-title":"BMJ."},{"key":"55786_CR47","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"382","DOI":"10.1097\/PGP.0b013e318242118c","volume":"31","author":"D Ulrich","year":"2012","unstructured":"Ulrich, D. et al. Conization of the uterine cervix: does the level of gynecologist\u2019s training predict margin status? Int J Gynecol Pathol. 31, 382\u2013386 (2012).","journal-title":"Int J Gynecol Pathol."},{"key":"55786_CR48","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1665","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(17)30700-3","volume":"18","author":"M Arbyn","year":"2017","unstructured":"Arbyn, M. et al. Incomplete excision of cervical precancer as a predictor of treatment failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 18, 1665\u20131679 (2017).","journal-title":"Lancet Oncol."},{"key":"55786_CR49","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kyrgiou M, et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. i3633 (2016).","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.i3633"},{"key":"55786_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"286","DOI":"10.1097\/LGT.0000000000000014","volume":"18","author":"MV de Mello Silva","year":"2014","unstructured":"de Mello Silva, M. V. et al. Factors associated with the persistence\/recurrence of CIN2\/3 in women submitted to loop electrosurgical excision procedure in a teaching hospital in northeastern Brazil: a case-control study. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 18, 286\u2013290 (2014).","journal-title":"J Low Genit Tract Dis."},{"key":"55786_CR51","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1153","DOI":"10.1111\/apm.12064","volume":"121","author":"RB Simoes","year":"2013","unstructured":"Simoes, R. B. et al. Post-cervical conization outcomes in patients with high-grade intraepithelial lesions. APMIS. 121, 1153\u20131161 (2013).","journal-title":"APMIS."},{"key":"55786_CR52","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"126","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ygyno.2017.10.029","volume":"148","author":"W Satmary","year":"2018","unstructured":"Satmary, W. et al. Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia: Risk factors for recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 148, 126\u2013131 (2018).","journal-title":"Gynecol Oncol."}],"container-title":["Scientific Reports"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41598-019-55786-4.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41598-019-55786-4","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41598-019-55786-4.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,12,17]],"date-time":"2022-12-17T17:28:47Z","timestamp":1671298127000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41598-019-55786-4"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,13]]},"references-count":52,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,12]]}},"alternative-id":["55786"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41598-019-55786-4","relation":{},"ISSN":["2045-2322"],"issn-type":[{"type":"electronic","value":"2045-2322"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,13]]},"assertion":[{"value":"11 September 2019","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"3 December 2019","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"13 December 2019","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}],"article-number":"19114"}}