Literature DB >> 8420348

A comparison of the Pipelle device and the Vabra aspirator as measured by endometrial denudation in hysterectomy specimens: the Pipelle device samples significantly less of the endometrial surface than the Vabra aspirator.

G C Rodriguez1, N Yaqub, M E King.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The distribution and relative area of endometrial sampling of two endometrial biopsy techniques, Pipelle and Vabra aspiration biopsy, were compared. STUDY
DESIGN: Twenty-five patients scheduled for hysterectomy were randomly assigned to undergo preoperative endometrial biopsy by Pipelle device (12 patients) or Vabra aspiration (13 patients). The endometrial cavities of the surgical specimens were photographed, and percent denudation was determined by a point-counting method.
RESULTS: The percentage of endometrial surface area sampled by the Pipelle device was 4.2% +/- 0.92% (mean +/- SEM), and by Vabra aspirator 41.6% +/- 5.7% (p < 0.0001). The mean number of endometrial surfaces (one anterior and one posterior) sampled by the Pipelle device was 1.08 +/- 0.15, and by the Vabra aspirator 2 +/- 0 (p = 0.001). The mean number of endometrial quadrants (four anterior plus four posterior) sampled by the Pipelle device was 2.4 +/- 0.41, and by the Vabra aspirator 7.4 +/- 0.42 (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: We conclude that the Vabra aspirator is statistically superior to the Pipelle device for sampling the endometrial cavity when the total surface area sampled and the distribution of surfaces sampled are considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8420348     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(12)90884-4

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


  13 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.  The demise of the D&C.

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

4.  Endometrial sampling and general practice.

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

5.  Utility of preoperative endometrial assessment in asymptomatic women undergoing hysterectomy for pelvic floor dysfunction.

Authors:  Olga Ramm; Jonathan L Gleason; Saya Segal; Danielle D Antosh; Kimberly S Kenton
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Operative ultrasonography for upper genital tract pathology.

Authors:  S R Lindheim; M Cohen; M V Sauer
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Effectiveness of progestin-based therapy for morbidly obese women with complex atypical hyperplasia.

Authors:  Marcia A Ciccone; Stephanie A Whitman; Charlotte L Conturie; Niquelle Brown; Christina E Dancz; Begum Özel; Koji Matsuo
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 2.344

8.  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

9.  Abnormal uterine bleeding: an evaluation endometrial biopsy, vaginal ultrasound and outpatient hysteroscopy.

Authors:  D C Hunter; N McClure
Journal:  Ulster Med J       Date:  2001-05

10.  Adequacy of the endometrial samples obtained by the uterine explora device and conventional dilatation and curettage: a comparative study.

Authors:  Maria Abdulrahim Arafah; Ammar Cherkess Al-Rikabi; Rakia Aljasser; Yaser Adi
Journal:  Int J Reprod Med       Date:  2014-01-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.