Literature DB >> 1957847

A prospective, randomized comparison of the Pipelle endometrial sampling device with the Novak curette.

T G Stovall1, F W Ling, P L Morgan.   

Abstract

This prospective, randomized study compares sample adequacy, pain associated with endometrial biopsy, and correlation of endometrial histologic sampling with hysterectomy histologic results in specimens obtained by the Pipelle (Unimar Inc., Wilton, Conn.) device (N = 149) and the Novak (Miltex, Inc., Lake Success, N.Y.) curette (N = 126). During a 2-year period, patients with abnormal uterine bleeding seen in our ambulatory care facility were enrolled in this trial, unless they did not wish to participate or had a positive pregnancy test result. Patients in both groups were similar with respect to mean gravidity, parity, and menopausal status, although patients in the Novak group were older (43.4 vs 39.1 years, p = 0.005). Patients undergoing Novak biopsy had a mean pain score of 4.36 with 22 of 126 (17%) reporting severe pain, whereas patients undergoing Pipelle biopsy had a mean pain score of 3.21 with only 10 of 149 (6.7%) reporting severe pain (p less than 0.05). These pain scores were not affected by menstrual day, gravidity, parity, or menopausal status. Insufficient tissue was reported in 12.8% of patients in the Pipelle group compared with 9.5% in the Novak group (p greater than 0.05). Fifty patients underwent subsequent hysterectomy. In 48 of 50 (96%), the pathologic results at hysterectomy were in agreement with the histologic findings at endometrial sampling. This clinical trial suggests that Pipelle biopsy appears to be as effective as the Novak curette in obtaining an adequate specimen for histologic analysis and is associated with less pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1957847     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(91)90351-q

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  14 in total

Review 1.  Management of gynaecological cancers.

Authors:  A Melville; A Eastwood; J Kleijnen; H Kitchener; P Martin-Hirsch; L Nelson
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1999-12

2.  Who needs an endometrial biopsy?

Authors:  Sheri-Lee Samson; Donna Gilmour
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 3.  Managing menorrhagia.

Authors:  A Coulter; A Long; J Kelland; S O'Meara; M Sculpher; F Song; T A Sheldon
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1995-09

4.  Results of a questionnaire regarding criteria for adequacy of endometrial biopsies.

Authors:  V Phillips; W G McCluggage
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Acute uterine bleeding unrelated to pregnancy: a Southern California Permanente Medical Group practice guideline.

Authors:  Malcolm G Munro
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2013

Review 6.  The demise of the D&C.

Authors:  C J Seamark
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Endometrial sampling and general practice.

Authors:  M Shapley; C W Redman
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Diagnostic dilatation and curettage in young women.

Authors:  B V Lewis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-01-23

9.  The effectiveness of the Masterson curette in sampling the endometrial cavity.

Authors:  L Reddington; E Hernandez; G Balsara; D Hughes; L Anderson; P B Heller
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 1.798

10.  Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

Authors:  Bich Ngoc Bui; Sarah F Lensen; Ahmed Gibreel; Wellington P Martins; Helen Torrance; Frank J Broekmans
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-03-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.