宫腔镜在诊断慢性子宫内膜炎中的准确性

IF 0.4 4区 医学 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology Pub Date : 2022-02-11 DOI:10.31083/j.ceog4902044
Mohamed Elmahdy Abdel Moneim, Amany Abdelbary Abdel Latif, Marwa Shehata, I. Ghanem
{"title":"宫腔镜在诊断慢性子宫内膜炎中的准确性","authors":"Mohamed Elmahdy Abdel Moneim, Amany Abdelbary Abdel Latif, Marwa Shehata, I. Ghanem","doi":"10.31083/j.ceog4902044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To test the accuracy of office hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of chronic endometritis (CE) as compared to histopathological diagnosis. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in a private hospital from July 2018 to January 2020. 220 infertile women were scheduled for first attempt of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Patients ranging in age from 20–40 with history of primary infertility scheduled for ICSI for the first time were included, while patients with chronic diseases, severe vaginal bleeding, previous failed ICSI, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), or endometriosis were excluded. All patients received postmenstrual office hysteroscopy to rule out the presence of CE; at the same setting, endometrial biopsy was taken and sent for histopathological examination. Results: 174 cases (79.1%) were diagnosed as CE at hysteroscopy, while 162 (73.6%) cases were positive at histopathology. 99.4% of the cases presented with hyperaemia, followed by oedema in 74.7% and micro-polypi in 58.6% of cases with CE. There was a significant difference between the hysteroscopic and the histopathologic diagnosis of CE (p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of hysteroscopy were 93.83%, 62.07%, 87.36% and 78.26% respectively. Conclusions: Office hysteroscopic evaluation is relatively accurate on its own but can be further confirmed by CD138 staining.","PeriodicalId":10312,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of office hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of chronic endometritis\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Elmahdy Abdel Moneim, Amany Abdelbary Abdel Latif, Marwa Shehata, I. Ghanem\",\"doi\":\"10.31083/j.ceog4902044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: To test the accuracy of office hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of chronic endometritis (CE) as compared to histopathological diagnosis. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in a private hospital from July 2018 to January 2020. 220 infertile women were scheduled for first attempt of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Patients ranging in age from 20–40 with history of primary infertility scheduled for ICSI for the first time were included, while patients with chronic diseases, severe vaginal bleeding, previous failed ICSI, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), or endometriosis were excluded. All patients received postmenstrual office hysteroscopy to rule out the presence of CE; at the same setting, endometrial biopsy was taken and sent for histopathological examination. Results: 174 cases (79.1%) were diagnosed as CE at hysteroscopy, while 162 (73.6%) cases were positive at histopathology. 99.4% of the cases presented with hyperaemia, followed by oedema in 74.7% and micro-polypi in 58.6% of cases with CE. There was a significant difference between the hysteroscopic and the histopathologic diagnosis of CE (p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of hysteroscopy were 93.83%, 62.07%, 87.36% and 78.26% respectively. Conclusions: Office hysteroscopic evaluation is relatively accurate on its own but can be further confirmed by CD138 staining.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog4902044\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog4902044","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:与组织病理学诊断相比,检验办公室宫腔镜在诊断慢性子宫内膜炎(CE)中的准确性。方法:这项前瞻性队列研究于2018年7月至2020年1月在一家私立医院进行。计划对220名不孕妇女进行第一次卵浆内单精子注射(ICSI)。年龄在20-40岁之间,有首次计划进行ICSI的原发性不孕史的患者被纳入,而患有慢性疾病、严重阴道出血、既往ICSI失败、多囊卵巢综合征(PCOS)或子宫内膜异位症的患者被排除在外。所有患者均接受了月经后办公室宫腔镜检查,以排除CE的存在;在同样的情况下,子宫内膜活检并进行组织病理学检查。结果:宫腔镜诊断为CE 174例(79.1%),组织病理学阳性162例(73.6%)。99.4%的病例表现为充血,其次是水肿74.7%和微息肉58.6%的CE病例。宫腔镜诊断CE的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值分别为93.83%、62.07%、87.36%和78.26%。结论:Office宫腔镜评估本身是相对准确的,但可以通过CD138染色进一步证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Accuracy of office hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of chronic endometritis
Background: To test the accuracy of office hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of chronic endometritis (CE) as compared to histopathological diagnosis. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in a private hospital from July 2018 to January 2020. 220 infertile women were scheduled for first attempt of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Patients ranging in age from 20–40 with history of primary infertility scheduled for ICSI for the first time were included, while patients with chronic diseases, severe vaginal bleeding, previous failed ICSI, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), or endometriosis were excluded. All patients received postmenstrual office hysteroscopy to rule out the presence of CE; at the same setting, endometrial biopsy was taken and sent for histopathological examination. Results: 174 cases (79.1%) were diagnosed as CE at hysteroscopy, while 162 (73.6%) cases were positive at histopathology. 99.4% of the cases presented with hyperaemia, followed by oedema in 74.7% and micro-polypi in 58.6% of cases with CE. There was a significant difference between the hysteroscopic and the histopathologic diagnosis of CE (p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of hysteroscopy were 93.83%, 62.07%, 87.36% and 78.26% respectively. Conclusions: Office hysteroscopic evaluation is relatively accurate on its own but can be further confirmed by CD138 staining.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: CEOG is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal. CEOG covers all aspects of Obstetrics and Gynecology, including obstetrics, prenatal diagnosis, maternal-fetal medicine, perinatology, general gynecology, gynecologic oncology, uro-gynecology, reproductive medicine, infertility, reproductive endocrinology, sexual medicine. All submissions of cutting-edge advances of medical research in the area of women''s health worldwide are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Maternal Deaths in Kayseri: Causes and Risk Factors The Relationship between Nifedipine and Postpartum Blood Loss in Patients with Preterm Labor Add-Back and Combined Regulation in GnRH-a Treatment of Endometriosis The Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) Procedures in Contemporary Gynecology: An Appraisal of the Published Evidence and a Review A Retrospective Study Comparing of Group B Streptococcus Invasiveness in Pregnant Women and Infants
×
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