Aims. Our aim is to compare the adequacy and diagnostic yield of samples obtained by the endometrial Explora Sampler I-MX120 with endometrial specimens obtained by conventional dilatation and curettage (D&C). Methods. A total of 1270 endometrial samples were received in the histopathology laboratories at the King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between 2007 and 2010. In the outpatient clinic, the Uterine Explora Model I was used to obtain 996 samples. The remaining 274 samples were obtained by conventional D&C. Sample adequacy and the clustering of inadequate specimens according to age groups by the two different techniques were compared and statistically analyzed. Results. Out of 1270 endometrial samples, 253 (19.9%) were inadequate. The Uterine Explora was used in 88.5% of these inadequate samples (253 samples), and the remaining 11.5% were obtained by D&C. The insufficient tissue incidence was higher with the Explora (17.6%) than with the D&C (2.2%) and the difference was statistically significant . The ages of the patients, as well as the clinical indications for the procedures, were recorded. Conclusion. This retrospective study demonstrated better specimen adequacy when D&C was used compared to the higher rate of sample insufficiency obtained with the Explora. 1. Introduction Abnormal uterine bleeding is one of the most common complaints presented to gynecologists. The majority of women with menorrhagia, postcoital bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding, or postmenopausal bleeding ultimately undergo diagnostic hysteroscopy with endometrial sampling as part of their assessment, particularly if symptoms persist or pelvic imaging suggests a uterine abnormality [1]. Dilatation and curettage (D&C) has been widely considered to be the method of choice for obtaining endometrial samples for histopathological evaluation. However, the needs for admission and general anesthesia and their associated costs have made this option less favorable [2]. In the outpatient setting, endometrial sampling is an effective and acceptable method for obtaining endometrial samples for histopathological assessment [3, 4]. However, approximately 10% of outpatient endometrial samples do not provide adequate tissue. Inadequate sampling is more problematic in postmenopausal women, for whom up to 68% of endometrial samples are reported to be inadequate [5]. In our institution, the only sampling tool available to perform the outpatient sampling procedure is the Uterine Explora Model I-MX120 (http://www.coopersurgical.com/) (Figure 1). This device utilizes a syringe
References
[1]
F. Nagele, H. O'Connor, A. Davies, A. Badawy, H. Mohamed, and A. Magos, “2500 Outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopies,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 87–92, 1996.
[2]
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, “Investigation of post-menopausal bleeding,” Publication 61, Royal College of Physician, Edinburgh, UK, 2002.
[3]
T. Batool, P. W. Reginald, and J. H. Hughes, “Outpatient pipelle endometrial biopsy in the investigation of postmenopausal bleeding,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 545–546, 1994.
[4]
G. C. Rodriguez, N. Yaqub, and M. E. King, “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,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 168, no. 1, pp. 55–59, 1993.
[5]
S. J. Gordon and J. Westgate, “The incidence and management of failed pipelle sampling in a general outpatient clinic,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 115–118, 1999.
[6]
G. H. Lipscomb, S. M. Lopatine, T. G. Stovall, and F. W. Ling, “A randomized comparison of the Pipelle, accurette, and explora endometrial sampling devices,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 170, no. 2, pp. 591–594, 1994.
[7]
A. R. W. Williams, S. Brechin, A. J. L. Porter, P. Warner, and H. O. D. Critchley, “Factors affecting adequacy of Pipelle and Tao Brush endometrial sampling,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 115, no. 8, pp. 1028–1036, 2008.
[8]
S. Madari, N. Al-Shabibi, P. Papalampros, A. Papadimitriou, and A. Magos, “A randomised trial comparing the H Pipelle with the standard Pipelle for endometrial sampling at “no-touch” (vaginoscopic) hysteroscopy,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 32–37, 2009.
[9]
T. G. Stovall, S. K. Solomon, and F. W. Ling, “Endometrial sampling prior to hysterectomy,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 405–409, 1989.
[10]
A. M. Kaunitz, A. Masciello, M. Ostrowski, and E. Z. Rovira, “Comparison of endometrial biopsy with the endometrial pipelle and vabra aspirator,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 427–431, 1988.
[11]
M. M. Silver, P. Miles, and C. Rosa, “Comparison of Novak and Pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 828–830, 1991.
[12]
T. G. Stovall, F. W. Ling, and P. L. Morgan, “A prospective, randomized comparison of the Pipelle endometrial sampling device with the Novak curette,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 165, no. 5, pp. 1287–1290, 1991.
[13]
T. G. Stovall, G. J. Photopulos, W. M. Poston, F. W. Ling, and L. G. Sandles, “Pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with known endometrial carcinoma,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 954–956, 1991.
[14]
G. S. Huang, J. S. Gebb, M. H. Einstein, S. Shahabi, A. P. Novetsky, and G. L. Goldberg, “Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling for the detection of high-grade endometrial tumors,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 196, no. 3, pp. 243.e1–243.e5, 2007.
[15]
P. P. Koonings, D. L. Moyer, and D. A. Grimes, “A randomized clinical trial comparing Pipelle and Tis-U-trap for endometrial biopsy,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 293–295, 1990.
[16]
T. J. Clark, C. H. Mann, N. Shah, K. S. Khan, F. Song, and J. K. Gupta, “Accuracy of outpatient endometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer: a systematic quantitative review,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 313–321, 2002.
