Perisic, Z. (56610624400)Z. (56610624400)PerisicPerisic, M. (59618202500)M. (59618202500)PerisicKarapandzic, V.P. (36092731000)V.P. (36092731000)KarapandzicVasiljevic, M. (6603666911)M. (6603666911)VasiljevicRaznatovic, S.J. (8639219200)S.J. (8639219200)RaznatovicJurisic, A. (6701523028)A. (6701523028)Jurisic2025-06-122025-06-122011https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-81255208055&partnerID=40&md5=9d7afa058d9d5effef95cba9443151c7https://remedy.med.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/9891Purpose: Cone biopsy is the best treatment for high-grade premalignant cervical changes. Cervical intraepithelial changes do not show any clinical picture until the process develops into carcinoma. Method: This retrospective study included 395 women who underwent conization at Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic "Narodni front" during 2009. The chi-square test was used for comparing results. Results: Pathohistological findings from biospy and conization were identical in 40.50% of patients, in 10.13%, the conization finding was more severe than the biopsy finding, while in 49.37% less severe than the biopsy finding. Resection margins status analysis showed that 12.66% of cones were positive. Comparison between cones with positive margins and operative techniques did not show any statistically significant difference; 64% of women with positive margins were over the age of 35. Conclusion: Operative conization techniques are equally represented. However in women over the age of 40 scalpel excision methods are recommended. In women over the age of 45 there is a statistically significant increase in the risk for positive resection margin with CIN3 and glandular lesions.BiopsyConizationCytology