Cervical cancer progress is a multi-step process that is initiated with minimal changes in the cervical cells and without effective treatment; it can advance into invasive cervical cancer over time (
13-
15). Although, CKC and LEEP, as the local cervical treatments, have important roles in preventing invasive cervical cancer (
16-
18), all patients after conization should be followed up over 20 years to detect any treatment failure that causes residual or recurrence of cervical cancers (
19,
20).
In line with our study, the recurrence rate of high-grade cervical lesions is reported at 6.6%, although it can vary as low as 2.1% in CKC and equal to 14% in LEEP (
21). In some previous studies, the risk of CIN2
+ recurrence at one next year is detected about twice-fold in women who underwent LEEP rather than in CKC (
22,
23), this fact is also represented in our study.
One study from multiple hospitals in China which includes 5050 women and another cohort study from the national population of Sweden which consists of 153632 women with CIN or carcinoma in situ who underwent CKC or LEEP conization, indicated that women who underwent CKC treatment had a significantly lower risk of recurrent cervical lesions compared to those who underwent LEEP treatment, which confirms our findings (
24).
In contrast to our findings, in a retrospective study by Galli et al. the recurrence rate was 8.3% vs 11.1% in women undergoing LEEP vs. CKC group (
25). Furthermore, in four trials involving 1,035 women with CIN, it was reported that women who underwent LEEP for CIN experienced significantly lower rates of disease persistence at a 6-month follow-up biopsy and significantly lower rates of recurrence at a 12-month follow-up biopsy compared to those who received cryotherapy. Additionally, the study found no increase in complication rates associated with the LEEP procedure (
26).
In some others studies, there was no significant difference between CKC or LEEP groups regards the overall proportion of positive surgical margins (
27). In a study by Wang et al., 447 cases (259 with LEEP and 188 with CKC) were evaluated. The mean recurrence rate of high-grade cervical lesions had no significant differences in the two applied conization methods. Recurrence with CINII was reported in 7 women (25.9) in the LEEP group and 2 (33.3%) cases in the CKC group. While CIN3 detection was in 20 (74.1%) women in the LEEP group and 4 cases (66.7) in the CKC group (
28).
Similar to our findings, some former studies (
29,
30) showed that post-LEEP or cryotherapy surgery complications seem rare and the same. In contrast, in some studies, CKC was associated with higher complications such as preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, and adverse neonatal outcomes. Higher biopsy specimen and risk of post-conization bleeding and stenosis (
31,
32).
In addition, they concluded that women who received CKC are associated with a lower risk of HPV persistence and recurrent cervical lesions compared to women who received LEEP (
25); otherwise, HPV persistence rate was not evaluated in our study. Close follow-up is necessary for prompt detection and treatment of persistent or recurrent disease (
30).
One of the major limitations of our study was incomplete data about HPV clearance in the follow-up visits. The other limitation was not evaluating reproductive outcomes such as the effect of treatment on future spontaneous abortion rate or infertility. Future well-designed multi-center research is needed to evaluate the time-to-event CIN2+ recurrence rate and its related factors, as well as high-quality follow-up studies.
5.1. Conclusions
The present study compared the benefits and harms of CKC and LEEP. The recurrence rate and surgery complications of the two methods seem similar with no significant differences, although more high-quality and comprehensive research with a long-term follow-up period is needed to confirm our findings.