{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,17]],"date-time":"2026-03-17T01:49:22Z","timestamp":1773712162016,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":28,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"1","content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>OBJECTIVE:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To estimate whether previous loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) affects the risk of cesarean delivery.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>METHODS:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed. Women who underwent a prior LEEP were compared with two unexposed cohorts: 1) women with prior screening cervical cytology only; and 2) women with prior cervical punch biopsy. The pregnancy evaluated in this analysis was the first pregnancy of a duration more than 20 weeks of gestation after the identifying cervical procedure. Stratified and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to control for confounding.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>RESULTS:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Five hundred ninety-eight women with prior LEEP, 588 women with screening cytology only, and 552 women with cervical biopsy were included in this study. After adjusting for relevant confounders, similar rates of cesarean delivery were seen in women with prior LEEP (31.6%) and women with prior cervical cytology only (29.3%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79\u20131.41). Likewise, no differences were found in rates of cesarean delivery when women with prior LEEP were compared with those with a prior punch biopsy (29.0%, adjusted OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74\u20131.33). Among women who had a cesarean delivery, arrest of labor was the indication for cesarean delivery in a similar proportion of women in the groups (LEEP compared with cytology only,\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P<\/jats:italic>\n                      =.12; LEEP compared with biopsy,\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P<\/jats:italic>\n                      =.50). Loop electrosurgical excision procedure specimen size did not vary by delivery mode. Length of time between LEEP and subsequent pregnancy also did not influence delivery mode.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>CONCLUSION:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Loop electrosurgical excision procedure does not affect mode of delivery in the subsequent pregnancy.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>II<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1097\/aog.0b013e318278f904","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2015,10,13]],"date-time":"2015-10-13T14:40:27Z","timestamp":1444747227000},"page":"39-45","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":8,"title":["Risk of Cesarean Delivery After Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure"],"prefix":"10.1097","volume":"121","author":[{"given":"Heather A.","family":"Frey","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Molly J.","family":"Stout","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Anthony O.","family":"Odibo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"David M.","family":"Stamilio","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Alison G.","family":"Cahill","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Kimberly A.","family":"Roehl","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"George A.","family":"Macones","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"276","reference":[{"key":"R1-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"340","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2007.07.050","article-title":"Solomon D; 2006 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology-sponsored Consensus Conference. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.","volume":"197","author":"Wright","year":"2007","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R2-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"69","DOI":"10.1055\/s-2006-956777","article-title":"Dynamics of cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition: mechanisms and current concepts.","volume":"25","author":"Word","year":"2007","journal-title":"Semin Reprod Med"},{"key":"R3-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2100","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.291.17.2100","article-title":"Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery.","volume":"291","author":"Sadler","year":"2004","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"key":"R4-8-20260317","first-page":"1005","article-title":"Increased risk of preterm birth in women with cervical conization.","volume":"81","author":"Kristensen","year":"1993","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R5-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"258","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2009.02438.x","article-title":"After conisation of the cervix, the perinatal mortality as a result of preterm delivery increases in subsequent pregnancy.","volume":"117","author":"Ortoft","year":"2010","journal-title":"BJOG"},{"key":"R6-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"605","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181d068a3","article-title":"Loop electrosurgical excision procedure and risk of preterm birth.","volume":"115","author":"Werner","year":"2010","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R7-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"19","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2011.01.003","article-title":"Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery.","volume":"205","author":"Bevis","year":"2011","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R8-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"276","DOI":"10.1016\/S0002-9378(99)70200-0","article-title":". Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a randomized, prospective study.","volume":"180","author":"Duggan","year":"1999","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R9-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1186","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2003.280","article-title":"A cost-effectiveness analysis of management strategies for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3.","volume":"188","author":"Kleinberg","year":"2003","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R10-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"175","DOI":"10.1006\/gyno.1994.1189","article-title":"A randomized prospective study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP.","volume":"54","author":"Mathevet","year":"1994","journal-title":"Gynecol Oncol"},{"key":"R11-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"224","DOI":"10.1006\/gyno.1994.1281","article-title":". LLETZ is an acceptable alternative to diagnostic cold-knife conization.","volume":"55","author":"Naumann","year":"1994","journal-title":"Gynecol Oncol"},{"key":"R12-8-20260317","first-page":"1058","article-title":"Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a systematic review.","volume":"102","author":"Crane","year":"2003","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R13-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"214","DOI":"10.1016\/S0301-2115(02)00245-2","article-title":"Long-term outcome of a randomized study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP.","volume":"106","author":"Mathevet","year":"2003","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"key":"R14-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e31821e5f65","article-title":"Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate.","volume":"118","author":"Barber","year":"2011","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R15-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S5","DOI":"10.2337\/diacare.26.2007.S5","article-title":"Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus.","volume":"26","year":"2003","journal-title":"Diabetes Care"},{"key":"R16-8-20260317","first-page":"S1","article-title":"Am J Obstet G","volume":"183","year":"2000","journal-title":"ynecol"},{"key":"R17-8-20260317","first-page":"39","article-title":"Obesity as a risk factor for cesarean in a low-risk population.","volume":"97","author":"Kaiser","year":"2001","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R18-8-20260317","first-page":"340","article-title":"Risks preceding increased primary cesarean birth rates.","volume":"59","author":"Sokol","year":"1982","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R19-8-20260317","first-page":"1352","article-title":"Risk factors for cesarean delivery at presentation of nulliparous patients in labor.","volume":"102","author":"Wilkes","year":"2003","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R20-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"109","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-005-0727-1","article-title":"Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.","volume":"272","author":"Acharya","year":"2005","journal-title":"Arch Gynecol Obstet"},{"key":"R21-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"604","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ygyno.2006.04.003","article-title":"Delivery outcome after cold-knife conization of the uterine cervix.","volume":"103","author":"Klaritsch","year":"2006","journal-title":"Gynecol Oncol"},{"key":"R22-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"10","DOI":"10.1006\/gyno.2002.6650","article-title":"Delivery outcomes following loop electrosurgical excision procedure for microinvasive (FIGO stage IA1) cervical cancer.","volume":"86","author":"Paraskevaidis","year":"2002","journal-title":"Gynecol Oncol"},{"key":"R23-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"325","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000151991.09124.bb","article-title":"The effect of loop electrosurgical excision procedure on future pregnancy outcome.","volume":"105","author":"Samson","year":"2005","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R24-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"25","DOI":"10.1080\/01443610310001620242","article-title":"The outcome of pregnancy after large loop excision of the transformation zone of the cervix.","volume":"24","author":"Tan","year":"2004","journal-title":"J Obstet Gynaecol"},{"key":"R25-8-20260317","first-page":"207","article-title":"Effect of cervical carcinoma in situ and its management on pregnancy outcome.","volume":"93","author":"El-Bastawissi","year":"1999","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R26-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"489","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(06)68181-6","article-title":"Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis.","volume":"367","author":"Kyrgiou","year":"2006","journal-title":"Lancet"},{"key":"R27-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"149","DOI":"10.1007\/BF02133858","article-title":"Pregnancy and delivery after cone biopsy of the cervix.","volume":"237","author":"Kuoppala","year":"1986","journal-title":"Arch Gynecol"},{"key":"R28-8-20260317","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"467","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1995.tb11319.x","article-title":"Fertility and pregnancy outcome following large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone.","volume":"102","author":"Cruickshank","year":"1995","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynaecol"}],"container-title":["Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.lww.com\/00006250-201301000-00008","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,17]],"date-time":"2026-03-17T01:00:34Z","timestamp":1773709234000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.lww.com\/00006250-201301000-00008"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2013,1]]},"references-count":28,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/aog.0b013e318278f904","relation":{},"ISSN":["0029-7844"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0029-7844","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2013,1]]}}}