A Comparative Evaluation of the Three Different Methods of Endometrial Sampling in the Diagnosis of Perimenopausal Bleeding

Pooja Patil, Sunita Venigalla, Malligere Lingaiah Harendra Kumar, Kalyani Raju

Abstract


Background: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of three different methods of endometrial sampling (endometrial cytology using nasogastric tube no. 10, endometrial aspiration biopsy using pipelle, and traditional dilatation and curettage) in diagnosis of perimenopausal bleeding.

Methods: This study was conducted on patients with perimenopausal bleeding in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Tamaka, Kolar, from January 2012 to June 2013. A total of 100 women with perimenopausal bleeding were evaluated using the three different methods of endometrial sampling. After detailed history, examination and relevant investigations, each patient was subjected firstly to endometrial aspiration cytology using nasogastric tube, followed by pipelle aspiration biopsy and lastly traditional dilatation and curettage. Samples collected were sent for cytohistopathological assessment and the results were compared with dilatation and curettage method of sampling.

Results: Data were analyzed using Chi-squared test. There were 91 women with perimenopausal bleeding and nine women had post-menopausal bleeding. Endometrial aspiration cytology could detect benign endometrial pathologies in 44% and premalignant lesions in 19%. Pipelle biopsy detected benign pathologies in 49% and premalignant pathology in 45%. Dilatation and curettage detected benign pathology in 50% and premalignant lesions in 44%. About 37% of endometrial samples by aspiration cytology were found to be inadequate in comparison to 4% of endometrial samples by both pipelle biopsy and dilatation and curettage methods. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of endometrial aspiration cytology were 29.09%, 87.04% and 59% (P = 0.095) respectively. Pipelle biopsy had 100% sensitivity and 98.15% specificity with diagnostic accuracy of 99% (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Pipelle biopsy and dilatation and curettage showed almost equal success rate in the diagnosis of endometrial pathologies. Pipelle biopsy preserves stromal architecture better and takes shorter time compared to dilatation and curettage. Hence, it can be used as an initial screening procedure.




J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2014;3(4):133-137
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcgo271w


Keywords


Aspiration cytology; Dilatation and curettage; Perimenopausal bleeding; Pipelle biopsy

Full Text: HTML PDF
 

Browse  Journals  

     

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics

World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology

Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity

Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research

Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics

 

 

 

 

 

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics, quarterly, ISSN 1927-1271 (print), 1927-128X (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.                     
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
This is an open-access journal, the authors retain the copyright, the journal is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International CC-BY-NC 4.0)


This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website: www.jcgo.org   editorial contact: editor@jcgo.org
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors and Elmer Press Inc. This website is provided for medical research and informational purposes only and does not constitute any medical advice or professional services. The information provided in this journal should not be used for diagnosis and treatment, those seeking medical advice should always consult with a licensed physician.