Research Article

The comparison of two endometrial biopsy techniques in detection of endometrial pathologies

Volume: 2 Number: 1 April 1, 2019
TR EN

The comparison of two endometrial biopsy techniques in detection of endometrial pathologies

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance of hysteroscopic endometrial biopsy (H/S) and probe curettage (P/C) in the diagnosis of endometrial pathologies.

Material and Methods: Our study was conducted at a tertiary obstetrics and gynecology clinic between December 2010 and July 2011. In our prospective study, histopathological results of both biopsies with H/S and P/C applied to 83 patients admitted to our clinic for evaluation of endometrium, were examined and compared with combine procedure (H/S and P/C).

Results:  Histopathological results were as follows: endometrial polyps (48%), endometrial hyperplasia (13.2%), submucous myoma (4.8%), endometrial cancer (4.8%), and normal endometrial tissue (28.9%). Sensitivity values of biopsy with H/S versus biopsy with P/C for the endometrial polyp, submucous myoma, endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer were found as 97.5% vs. %54,6, 100% vs.%25 , 75% vs. %100 and 63.6% vs. %100, respectively.

Conclusion: H/S was apparently superior to P/C in diagnosis of focal lesions such as endometrial polyps and submucous myoma. We determined none of the interventions to be statistically superior to the other in diagnosis of diffuse lesions such as endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer. 

Keywords

References

  1. 1. Lessey BA, Killam AP,Metzger DA. Immunohistochemical analysis of human uterine estrogen and progesterone receptors throughout the menstrual cycle. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998;67:334-9.2. Fleischer AC, Gordon AN, Entman SS, et al: Transvaginal Scanning of the Endometriyum: Current and Potential Clinical Applications. In Fleischer AC, Romero R, Manning F (Eds): The Principles and Practice of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Norwalk, CT, Appleton and Lange, 1991.3. Marret H, Fauconnier A, Chabbert-Buffet N, Cravello L. Clinical practice guidelines on menoorhagia: management of abnormal uterine bleeding before menopause Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;152:133-7.4. De Vries LD, Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brolmann HA, Moret E, Heintz AP. Comparison of transvaginal sonography, saline infusion sonography, and hysteroscopy in premenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Clin Ultrasound 2000;28:217-23.5. Motashaw ND, Dave S. Diagnostic and therapeutic hysteroscopy in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding. J Reprod Med 1990;3:616-20.6. Hoo YC, Mak BS, Hsu C, Wong TS, Ma HK. Postmenopausal uterine bleeding of nonorganic cause. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:225-8.7. Parulaker SU. Significance of negative hysteroscopic view in abnormal uterine bleeding. J Postgrad Med 1992;38:62-4. 8. Emanuel MH, Verdel MJ, Wamsteker K, Lammes FB. A prospective comparison of transvaginal US and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of patients with abnormal uterine bleeding: clinical implications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:547-52.9. Cronje HS. Diagnostic hysteroscopy after postmenopausal uterine bleeding. S Afr Med J 1984;66:773-4. 10. Garutti G, Sambruni I, Cellani F, Garzia D, Alleva P, Luerti M. Hysteroscopy and transvaginal ultrasonography in postmenopausal women with uterine bleeding. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1999;65:25-33. 11. Mencaglia L, Vale RF, Perino A, Gilardi G.. Endometriyal carcinoma and its precursors: Early detection and treatment. Int J Gynekol Obstet 1990;31:107-16.12. Hidlebaugh D. A comparison of clinical outcomes and cost of office versus hospital hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1996;4:39-45. 13. Gimpleson R. Office hysteroscopy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1992;35:270-81. 14. Goldstein SR. Incorporating endovaginal ultrasonography into the overall gynecologic examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:625-32. 15. Crescini C, Artuso A, Repetti F, Reale D, Pezzica E. Hysteroscopic diagnosis in patients with abnormal uterine hemorrhage and previous endometriyal curettage. Minerva Ginecol 1992;44:233-5. 16. Maia H Jr, Barbosa IC, Farias JP, Ladipo OA, Coutinho EM. Evaluation of the endometriyal cavity during menopause. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1996;52:61-6. 17. Madan SM, Al-Jufairi ZA. Abnormal uterine bleeding. Diagnostic value of hysteroscopy. Saudi Med J 2001;22:153-6. 18. Svirsky R, Smorgick N, Rozowsky U, Sagiv R. Can we rely on blind endometrial biopsy for detection of focal intrauterine pathology? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:1-3.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Surgery

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Hüseyin Pehlivan This is me
Türkiye

Askın Evren Güler This is me
Türkiye

Bülent Çakmak This is me
Türkiye

Melahat Atasever This is me
0000-0001-8232-4719
Türkiye

Publication Date

April 1, 2019

Submission Date

September 8, 2018

Acceptance Date

October 23, 2018

Published in Issue

Year 2019 Volume: 2 Number: 1

APA
Pehlivan, H., Güler, A. E., Çakmak, B., Atasever, M., Bodur, S., Kıncı, M. F., & Yenen, M. C. (2019). The comparison of two endometrial biopsy techniques in detection of endometrial pathologies. Ege Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(1), 26-30. https://doi.org/10.33713/egetbd.458304
AMA
1.Pehlivan H, Güler AE, Çakmak B, et al. The comparison of two endometrial biopsy techniques in detection of endometrial pathologies. Ege Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019;2(1):26-30. doi:10.33713/egetbd.458304
Chicago
Pehlivan, Hüseyin, Askın Evren Güler, Bülent Çakmak, et al. 2019. “The Comparison of Two Endometrial Biopsy Techniques in Detection of Endometrial Pathologies”. Ege Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi 2 (1): 26-30. https://doi.org/10.33713/egetbd.458304.
EndNote
Pehlivan H, Güler AE, Çakmak B, Atasever M, Bodur S, Kıncı MF, Yenen MC (April 1, 2019) The comparison of two endometrial biopsy techniques in detection of endometrial pathologies. Ege Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi 2 1 26–30.
IEEE
[1]H. Pehlivan et al., “The comparison of two endometrial biopsy techniques in detection of endometrial pathologies”, Ege Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 26–30, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.33713/egetbd.458304.
ISNAD
Pehlivan, Hüseyin - Güler, Askın Evren - Çakmak, Bülent - Atasever, Melahat - Bodur, Serkan - Kıncı, Mehmet Ferdi - Yenen, Müfit Cemal. “The Comparison of Two Endometrial Biopsy Techniques in Detection of Endometrial Pathologies”. Ege Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi 2/1 (April 1, 2019): 26-30. https://doi.org/10.33713/egetbd.458304.
JAMA
1.Pehlivan H, Güler AE, Çakmak B, Atasever M, Bodur S, Kıncı MF, Yenen MC. The comparison of two endometrial biopsy techniques in detection of endometrial pathologies. Ege Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019;2:26–30.
MLA
Pehlivan, Hüseyin, et al. “The Comparison of Two Endometrial Biopsy Techniques in Detection of Endometrial Pathologies”. Ege Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 2, no. 1, Apr. 2019, pp. 26-30, doi:10.33713/egetbd.458304.
Vancouver
1.Hüseyin Pehlivan, Askın Evren Güler, Bülent Çakmak, Melahat Atasever, Serkan Bodur, Mehmet Ferdi Kıncı, Müfit Cemal Yenen. The comparison of two endometrial biopsy techniques in detection of endometrial pathologies. Ege Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019 Apr. 1;2(1):26-30. doi:10.33713/egetbd.458304

Cited By

The articles published in this journal are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).