Editing Loop electrical excision procedure (section)

==Complications==
Complications are less frequent in comparison to a [[cervical conization|cold-knife conization]] but can include [[infection]] and [[hemorrhage]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yanming |last2=Chen |first2=Changxian |last3=Li |first3=Li |date=2017-01-26 |title=Comparison of Cold-Knife Conization versus Loop Electrosurgical Excision for Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ (ACIS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=e0170587 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0170587 |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=5268480 |pmid=28125627 |bibcode=2017PLoSO..1270587J |doi-access=free }}</ref>

LEEP effectively reduces the risk of cancer developing or spreading but it causes an increased risk of [[Preterm birth|premature birth]] in future pregnancies.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Athanasiou |first1=Antonios |last2=Veroniki |first2=Areti Angeliki |last3=Efthimiou |first3=Orestis |last4=Kalliala |first4=Ilkka |last5=Naci |first5=Huseyin |last6=Bowden |first6=Sarah |last7=Paraskevaidi |first7=Maria |last8=Arbyn |first8=Marc |last9=Lyons |first9=Deirdre |last10=Martin-Hirsch |first10=Pierre |last11=Bennett |first11=Phillip |last12=Paraskevaidis |first12=Evangelos |last13=Salanti |first13=Georgia |last14=Kyrgiou |first14=Maria |date=2022-07-25 |title=Comparative effectiveness and risk of preterm birth of local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage IA1 cervical cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |journal=The Lancet Oncology |language=en |volume=23 |issue=8 |pages=1097–1108 |doi=10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00334-5 |pmc=9630146 |pmid=35835138}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |date=2023-11-10 |title=Prevention of cervical cancer: what are the risks and benefits of different treatments? |url=https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/prevention-of-cervical-cancer-what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of-different-treatments/ |journal=NIHR Evidence |type=Plain English summary |publisher=National Institute for Health and Care Research |doi=10.3310/nihrevidence_60599|s2cid=265201829 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="pmid29095502">{{cite journal |vauthors=Kyrgiou M, Athanasiou A, Kalliala IE, Paraskevaidi M, Mitra A, Martin-Hirsch PP, Arbyn M, Bennett P, Paraskevaidis E |date=November 2017 |title=Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial lesions and early invasive disease |journal=The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=11 |issue=11 |pages=CD012847 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD012847 |pmc=6486192 |pmid=29095502}}</ref> Following LEEP there is a 10% chance of cancer recurrence and 11% chance of preterm birth.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> This perspective carries significant implications when it comes to pregnancy timing and decision making in women of child bearing age who have cervical dysplasia and would like to decide whether they should have the lesions removed before or after pregnancy. As pregnancy is generally understood to be an immune suppressed state, the viral mediated character of cervical lesions might also inform revisions to treatment recommendations in such instances.<ref name="pmid24785601" />

Some women report a small decrease in sexual arousal and satisfaction following LEEP but there is a lack of high quality research showing how LEEP affects sexual function.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Litman |first1=Ethan A. |last2=Cigna |first2=Sarah T. |date=2022-04-07 |title=Female Sexual Dysfunction in Women After Treatment of Cervical Dysplasia |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2050052122000221 |journal=Sexual Medicine Reviews |language=en |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=360–366 |doi=10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.02.003|pmid=35400602 |s2cid=248029304 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>