Literature DB >> 31686754

The Impact of Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal Systems on Histopathologic Analysis for Benign and Cancerous Endometrial Pathology: An Ex Vivo Study.

Steven R Lindheim1, Kimberly Lincenberg1, Michelle A Wood2, Emily Kemner1,3, Megan K Burns2, Daniel L Hood4, Rose Maxwell1, Miryoung Lee5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of hysteroscopic tissue removal systems (TRS) on histopathology tissue diagnosis. MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS: This is a paired-comparison ex vivo study in which 23 endometrial sections from hysterectomized uteri (13 benign and 10 hyperplasia/cancer) were analyzed in a simulation laboratory center at a university teaching hospital. After routine tissue processing, a section of endometrium was provided for ex vivo TRS with suture mounting to a uterine model (Polly, Remedy). Morcellated specimens using the Hologic® MyoSure hysteroscopic device were processed for histopathologic analysis by two blinded pathologists (Pa and Pb) and compared to the original specimens' tissue diagnoses.
RESULTS: Sufficient tissue for evaluation was found in 100% (23/23) of TRS specimens by Pa and 91.3% by Pb. TRS specimen diagnoses were concordant with routine histologic diagnosis 86.9% (20/23, k = 0.76) for Pa and 80.9% (17/21, k = 0.68) for Pb. Sensitivity and specificity were 70%/100% for Pa and 80%/91% for Pb, respectively. The false-positive (overdiagnosed) and false-negative rates (underdiagnosed) were 0%/30% and 9%/20% for Pa and Pb. Both Pa and Pb underdiagnosed most specimens confirmed by routine tissue diagnosis. TRS specimen diagnoses between Pa and Pb were concordant in 76.2% (16/21, k = 0.60).
CONCLUSION: TRS may adversely impact the ability to provide a histologic tissue analysis. Up to 30% of samples were overdiagnosed and 20% underdiagnosed. If confirmed, pathologists may need to reassess workflows to better offset potential underdiagnosis of malignant specimens as findings may be obscured through TRS. Additionally, surgeons may need to reconsider specimen handling, so highest yield specimens are provided to pathology. © Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abnormal uterine bleeding; Hysteroscopic intrauterine morcellation; Malignancy; Uterine polyps

Year:  2018        PMID: 31686754      PMCID: PMC6801289          DOI: 10.1007/s13224-018-1177-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India        ISSN: 0975-6434


  12 in total

Review 1.  Intrauterine Morcellator Devices: The Icon of Hysteroscopic Future or Merely a Marketing Image? A Systematic Review Regarding Safety, Efficacy, Advantages, and Contraindications.

Authors:  Marco Noventa; Emanuele Ancona; Michela Quaranta; Amerigo Vitagliano; Erich Cosmi; Donato D'Antona; Salvatore Gizzo
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 3.060

Review 2.  Treatment of endometrial polyps: a systematic review.

Authors:  Marit Lieng; Olav Istre; Erik Qvigstad
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.636

3.  ACOG Technology Assessment No. 13: Hysteroscopy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Long-term outcomes after intrauterine morcellation vs hysteroscopic resection of endometrial polyps.

Authors:  Mariam M AlHilli; Kayla E Nixon; Matthew R Hopkins; Amy L Weaver; Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso; Abimbola O Famuyide
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 4.137

5.  Hysteroscopic morcellation compared with electrical resection of endometrial polyps: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Paul P Smith; Lee J Middleton; Mary Connor; T Justin Clark
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal Systems: A Randomized In Vitro Comparison.

Authors:  Deidre Meulenbroeks; Tjalina W O Hamerlynck; Sema Saglam-Kara; Nadia K Van Rijssel; Huib A A M Van Vliet; Benedictus C Schoot
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2016-09-03       Impact factor: 4.137

Review 7.  Hysteroscopic bipolar surgery: a valuable progress or a technique under investigation?

Authors:  Giancarlo Garuti; Massimo Luerti
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.927

8.  Hysteroscopic morcellator for removal of intrauterine polyps and myomas: a randomized controlled pilot study among residents in training.

Authors:  Heleen van Dongen; Mark Hans Emanuel; Ron Wolterbeek; J Baptist Trimbos; Frank Willem Jansen
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 4.137

9.  Glycine absorption in operative hysteroscopy: the impact of anesthesia.

Authors:  Marie-Eve Bergeron; Christine Beaudet; Emmanuel Bujold; Caroline Rhéaume; Pascale Ouellet; Philippe Laberge
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Clinical implementation of the hysteroscopic morcellator for removal of intrauterine myomas and polyps. A retrospective descriptive study.

Authors:  Tjalina Wibeke Oona Hamerlynck; Viviane Dietz; Benedictus Christiaan Schoot
Journal:  Gynecol Surg       Date:  2010-09-21
View more
  1 in total

1.  Mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal or hysteroscopic morcellator: understanding the past to predict the future. A narrative review.

Authors:  M Franchini; O Ceci; P Casadio; J Carugno; G Giarrè; G Gubbini; U Catena; M Chiara de Angelis; A Di Spiezio Sardo
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2021-06-10
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.