[Therapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and fertility]. / Terapia delle lesioni preinvasive del collo dell'utero e fertilità

BACKGROUND: We reviewed the case records of patients of childbearing age treated with various types of surgical techniques for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) to determine the impact of surgical treatment on their fertility. METHODS: Between 1983 and 1997 a total of 486 women with CIN received surgical treatment at out unit. Laser vaporization was used in 196 cases, cold-knife conization in 163 and REP in 127. The outcome of the various treatments was then compared. RESULTS: Independent of the surgical technique used, the percentage of pregnancies achieved after surgery was high: 93.33 and 96.66% of patients treated with laser vaporization and REP, respectively, and 87.69% of those who received cold-knife conization. The differences did not reach statistical significance nor were significant differences observed in the number of abortions or in the method of birth delivery (spontaneous, Cesarean section). However, a higher percentage of premature births was noted among women who received cold-knife conization (31.57%), which was statistically significant in the comparison among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results from our study indicated which techniques for the treatment of CIN may be preferable. Compared with the other two techniques, cold-knife conization bears higher costs (hospitalization, general anesthesia) and has been superceded by laser vaporization and REP as evaluated in this series. When cold-knife conization must be used, cerclage of the cervix uteri should be performed in the event of future pregnancy. In contrast, laser vaporization and REP can be performed in an outpatient setting with local anesthesia. These techniques, because they are conservative, afford the advantages of complete lesion removal and maintenance of reproductive capability. Another important consideration is that REP is less costly and allows histological examination of the surgical specimen.

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of three approaches to screening for and treating sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy.

The purpose of this study was to analyse and compare the costs involved in screening for and treating sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy in three different clinical settings. In the first setting, diabetologists screened using ophthalmoscopy and color photography, according to the St. Vincent Declaration guidelines, and selected patients for further assessment by a visiting ophthalmologist and for treatment in another hospital. In the second setting, all patients were regularly referred to ophthalmologists, either in the same hospital or elsewhere, for all aspects of eye care. In the third setting, screening was done again with ophthalmoscopy alone by diabetologists who followed the St. Vincent Declaration guidelines; however, further assessment and treatment were carried out in the eye department of the same hospital. Costs to the Italian National Health Service and to patients were calculated per screening performed and per patient subjected to laser treatment as a result of screening. A sensitivity analysis was then performed to simulate the costs of standardised patient populations going through the three different settings. It is concluded that absolute costs would be lower, both for the Italian National Health Service and for patients, if screening, assessment and treatment were all carried out in the same hospital. Equipping a diabetic clinic specially for screening would not be more expensive than delegating eye care to external parties, even for a hospital without an eye department. Moreover, delegating eye care more than doubles costs for patients. Screening for, assessing and treating sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy may be a cost-effective procedure for society as a whole in Italy.