A comparison of endometrial sampling histopathology by Pipelle curette versus Karman cannula in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding at a tertiary care hospital in Northwest Rajasthan

K. Solanki, S. Kochar, Laxmi Poonia, P. Gaur, Krishna Poonia, S. Choudhary
{"title":"A comparison of endometrial sampling histopathology by Pipelle curette versus Karman cannula in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding at a tertiary care hospital in Northwest Rajasthan","authors":"K. Solanki, S. Kochar, Laxmi Poonia, P. Gaur, Krishna Poonia, S. Choudhary","doi":"10.4103/jcrsm.jcrsm_23_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is a common and devastating condition affecting women of all ages. Among all patients attending gynecology outpatient department clinic, more than one-third patients are related to AUB, and this proportion rises to 70% in the perimenopausal and postmenopausal age. The condition has a high reported prevalence rate of 17.9% in India. Aims and Objective: To compare endometrial sampling histopathology by Pipelle curette versus Karman cannula in patients with AUB at a tertiary care hospital in Northwest Rajasthan. Materials and Methods: It was a prospective study conducted on 100 female patients of all age groups attending the department of obstetrics and gynecology over a period of 1 year with clinical diagnosis of AUB. After detailed history, examination, and relevant investigations, each patient was subjected first to endometrial aspiration using Pipelle curette followed by endometrial aspiration using Karman cannula No. 4. Samples collected were sent for histopathological assessment and the results were compared. Results: In our study, in 84% of cases, samples obtained by both Pipelle curette and Karman cannula were adequate. In 5% of cases, samples were inadequate by both methods. In 10% of cases, Karman cannula sample was adequate, but Pipelle curette sample was inadequate. In 1% of cases, sample could not be obtained by both procedures due to stenosed nulliparous cervix with large fibroid obstructing cervical os. Considering Karman cannula as the standard, Pipelle curette endometrial sampling demonstrated 100% sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), and accuracy with regard to diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and endometrial hyperplasia. For secretory endometrium, the corresponding values were 76.5%, 100%, 100%, 95.4%, and 99%, respectively. With regard to proliferative endometrium, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 92%, 96%, 98.6%, 80%, and 93%, respectively. With regard to atrophic endometrium, specificity, NPV, and accuracy were 100%, 99%, and 99%, respectively. Pipelle curette had a concordance rate of 87.5% with hysterectomy specimen, while Karman cannula had a concordance rate of 100%. Conclusion: Both Pipelle curette and Karman cannula endometrial aspiration biopsy are easy to perform, efficient, and safe outpatient endometrial sampling procedure in recognizing the endometrial lesions including malignancy and endometrial hyperplasia; however, Karman cannula had more adequate sample than Pipelle curette.","PeriodicalId":32638,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Current Research in Scientific Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Current Research in Scientific Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrsm.jcrsm_23_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is a common and devastating condition affecting women of all ages. Among all patients attending gynecology outpatient department clinic, more than one-third patients are related to AUB, and this proportion rises to 70% in the perimenopausal and postmenopausal age. The condition has a high reported prevalence rate of 17.9% in India. Aims and Objective: To compare endometrial sampling histopathology by Pipelle curette versus Karman cannula in patients with AUB at a tertiary care hospital in Northwest Rajasthan. Materials and Methods: It was a prospective study conducted on 100 female patients of all age groups attending the department of obstetrics and gynecology over a period of 1 year with clinical diagnosis of AUB. After detailed history, examination, and relevant investigations, each patient was subjected first to endometrial aspiration using Pipelle curette followed by endometrial aspiration using Karman cannula No. 4. Samples collected were sent for histopathological assessment and the results were compared. Results: In our study, in 84% of cases, samples obtained by both Pipelle curette and Karman cannula were adequate. In 5% of cases, samples were inadequate by both methods. In 10% of cases, Karman cannula sample was adequate, but Pipelle curette sample was inadequate. In 1% of cases, sample could not be obtained by both procedures due to stenosed nulliparous cervix with large fibroid obstructing cervical os. Considering Karman cannula as the standard, Pipelle curette endometrial sampling demonstrated 100% sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), and accuracy with regard to diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and endometrial hyperplasia. For secretory endometrium, the corresponding values were 76.5%, 100%, 100%, 95.4%, and 99%, respectively. With regard to proliferative endometrium, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 92%, 96%, 98.6%, 80%, and 93%, respectively. With regard to atrophic endometrium, specificity, NPV, and accuracy were 100%, 99%, and 99%, respectively. Pipelle curette had a concordance rate of 87.5% with hysterectomy specimen, while Karman cannula had a concordance rate of 100%. Conclusion: Both Pipelle curette and Karman cannula endometrial aspiration biopsy are easy to perform, efficient, and safe outpatient endometrial sampling procedure in recognizing the endometrial lesions including malignancy and endometrial hyperplasia; however, Karman cannula had more adequate sample than Pipelle curette.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
拉贾斯坦邦西北部一家三级医院子宫异常出血患者子宫内膜取样组织病理学的比较
背景:子宫异常出血(AUB)是一种影响所有年龄段女性的常见和破坏性疾病。在所有妇科门诊就诊的患者中,超过三分之一的患者与AUB有关,在围绝经期和绝经后年龄,这一比例上升到70%。据报道,该病在印度的流行率高达17.9%。目的和目的:比较拉贾斯坦邦西北部一家三级医院子宫内膜切除术患者子宫内膜取样组织病理学。材料与方法:本研究是一项前瞻性研究,选取临床诊断为AUB的100例1年以上在妇产科就诊的各年龄段女性患者。在详细的病史、检查和相关调查后,每位患者首先使用Pipelle curette进行子宫内膜抽吸,然后使用Karman 4号套管进行子宫内膜抽吸。将收集的样本送去进行组织病理学评估,并对结果进行比较。结果:在我们的研究中,84%的病例使用Pipelle刮管和Karman套管获得的样本都是足够的。在5%的情况下,两种方法的样本都不充分。10%的病例Karman套管样本充足,而Pipelle刮管样本不足。在1%的病例中,由于狭窄的无产宫颈和大肌瘤阻塞宫颈os,两种方法都不能获得样本。以Karman套管为标准,Pipelle curette子宫内膜取样对腺癌和子宫内膜增生的诊断具有100%的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值(PPV和NPV)和准确性。对于分泌性子宫内膜,相应值分别为76.5%、100%、100%、95.4%和99%。增生性子宫内膜的敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV和准确性分别为92%、96%、98.6%、80%和93%。对于萎缩性子宫内膜,特异性、NPV和准确性分别为100%、99%和99%。导管与子宫切除标本的符合率为87.5%,卡门套管与子宫切除标本的符合率为100%。结论:在诊断子宫内膜恶性病变、子宫内膜增生等方面,导管穿刺活检和卡门套管穿刺活检都是一种简便、有效、安全的门诊子宫内膜取样方法;卡门套管比普勒管取样更充分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of transfusion-transmitted infection and reactive donor response rate in a tertiary care hospital in South India: A retrospective observational study Corynebacterium jeikeium from exudative pharyngitis: A close mimicker of Corynebacterium diphtheriae Impact of evidence-based pedagogical approach on clinical reasoning among undergraduate physical therapy students Capnography troubleshooting: Lessons learned from laparoscopic hernia surgery A review on the crisis of antibiotic resistance and the strategies to combat resistance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1