Deciduosis ulcerada y embarazo <span class="so-article-trans-title" dir="auto"> Translated title: Ulcerous deciduosis and pregnancy </span>

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Introducción: la deciduosis representa el cuadro colposcópico más peculiar del embarazo. El término indica una ectopia decidual Objetivo: presentar el caso clínico de una gestante con una lesión cervical que resultó una deciduosis tipo ulcerada. Resultados: mediante la colposcopia y posteriormente una biopsia por ponchamiento se confirmó el diagnóstico de deciduosis tipo ulcerada en gestante de 22,5 sem. Conclusiones: ante toda gestante con una lesión cervical sospechosa o no de malignidad, se puede utilizar la colposcopia como método diagnóstico, realizada por un personal entrenado y biopsia dirigida según el caso en particular.

Translated abstract

Introduction: The deciduosis is the more typical colposcopy picture of pregnancy. This term indicates a decidual ectopia. Objective: To present the clinical case of a pregnant presenting with a cervical lesion led to an ulcerated deciduosis. Results: By means of a colposcopy and later by a punch biopsy the diagnosis of ulcerated deciduosis was confirmed in a pregnant of 22.5 weeks. Conclusions: In front of that each pregnant with a cervical lesion suspected or not of malignancy, the colposcopy could be used as a diagnostic method provided that is performed by trained staff and a biopsy directed according to the case in particular.

Related collections

Most cited references 11

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Postpartum regression rates of antepartum cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II and III lesions.

P Yost, Donald D. McIntire, Joseph T Santoso … (1999)

To study the histologic regression and progression rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) II and III after delivery and the effect the route of delivery has on the regression rates of CIN. Pregnant patients with satisfactory colposcopic examinations and biopsy-proven CIN II and III were identified. Delivery information and postpartum biopsy results were obtained by chart review. Two hundred seventy-nine patients had antepartum biopsies of CIN II or CIN III. Of these, 126 women were excluded for the following reasons: lost to follow-up (75), human immunodeficiency virus positive (two), cesarean hysterectomy (four), and inadequate postpartum follow-up (45). This yielded a study group of 153 patients consisting of 82 with CIN II and 71 with CIN III. The regression rates were 68% and 70% among CIN II and CIN III patients (P = .78), respectively. Seven percent of patients with CIN II progressed to CIN III on postpartum evaluation. Twenty-five percent of those patients with CIN II and 30% of those with CIN III remained the same postpartum. No CIN lesions progressed to invasive carcinoma. There were no differences in regression rates or progression rates among the women who had vaginal deliveries (130), women who labored and then underwent cesarean (17), or women who proceeded to a cesarean without laboring (six). We found similar high postpartum regression rates despite the route of delivery. We recommend conservative antepartum management with postpartum colposcopic evaluation regardless of route of delivery because we are unable to predict which of these lesions are more likely to regress.