Recurrent Dysplasia After a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure: Local Versus General Anesthesia

Objective This study aimed to compare the rates of positive specimen margins and postconization recurrent dysplasia between loop electrosurgical excision procedures (LEEPs) performed under general anesthesia (GA) and LEEP under local anesthesia (LA). Methods This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive women who underwent LEEP between 2011 and 2019. Collected data included demographics, LEEP indication, cone dimensions, and margin involvement as well as recurrence rate. Women who had undergone previous conization, cold-knife conization, or those who were lost to follow-up during the first 2 years after the procedure were excluded. Results Overall, 71 women who underwent LEEP under GA and 75 women under LA were included. Demographic characteristics were similar between the groups, as were the rates of preceding abnormal cytology and high-grade dysplasia before conization. Although cone depth and volume were higher for LEEP specimens done under GA compared with LA, the rate of positive specimen margins was comparable both for the endocervical margin (16/71 [22.5%] vs 16/75 [21.3%], respectively; p =.861) and the ectocervical margin (14/71 [19.7%] vs 11/75 [14.7%], respectively; p =.418). During the first 2 years after conization, the rates of high-grade dysplasia (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia ≥ 2) in repeat biopsy and the need for repeat conization were also not significantly different between the GA and LA groups (4.2% vs 1.3%, p =.356; 7.0% vs 9.3%, p =.614, respectively). Conclusions Anesthesia mode does not seem to affect the rate of positive LEEP margins and the need for repeat conization. Our study findings suggest that LA should be preferred instead of GA in LEEP.