Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Bagcilar Medical Bul...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Bagcilar Medical Bulletin
Article . 2021
Data sources: DOAJ
addClaim

Factors Affecting the Diagnostic Accuracy of Endometrial Pipelle® Biopsy

Authors: Alper Seyhan;

Factors Affecting the Diagnostic Accuracy of Endometrial Pipelle® Biopsy

Abstract

Objective:In this study, we aimed to compare the endometrial suction biopsy with Pipelle® and endometrial curettage (D&C) findings from patients with abnormal uterine bleeding and/or endometrial thickness to observe the possible influencing factors on ESB’s diagnostic value.Method:In Tekirdağ Community Hospital and Gynecology Clinic, data were retrospectively collected from hospital registry. 122 patients who had abnormal uterine bleeding and/or endometrial thickness were selected and from all cases, endometrial biopsies were taken with Pipelle® and D&C methods at the same time. In conclusion, pathologic results of two methods were compared.Results:Pathology results were as follows: By Pipelle®, 44 patients (36.1%) were found with endometrial polyp, 26 patients (21.3%) with endometrial atrophy, 31 patients (25.4%) with proliferative endometrium, 11 patients (9%) with secretory endometrium, 4 patients (3.3%) with endometrial carcinoma, 1 patient (0.8%) with hyperplasia without atypia, 2 patients (1.6%) with inflammation; by D&C, 55 patients (45.1%) were found with polyp, 20 patients (16.4%) with endometrial atrophy, 34 patients (27.9%) with proliferative endometrium, 9 patients (7.4%) with secretory endometrium, 4 patients (3.3%) with endometrial carcinoma, 1 patient (0.8%) with hyperplasia without atypia, 2 patients (1.6%) with inflammation. Correlations between two methods were found as 97.6%, 95.3%, 91.7%, 98.3%, 100%, 100%, and 100% for proliferative endometrium, atrophy, polyp, secretory endometrium, endometrial cancer, hyperplasia without atypia and inflammation, respectively. Discorrelations between two diagnostic methods were more commonly seen in endometrial polyp pathology.Conclusion:Our study findings revealed very high correlations between the pathology results of Pipelle® and D&C procedures. Pipelle®, with the advantages of being a simple outpatient procedure and having less complication rates, can be preferred over D&C reliably in most clinic situations. On the other hand, D&C method should be preferred in cases of endometrial polyp pathologies due to increased discorrelation rates and biopsy failures in Pipelle® biopsy.

Keywords

endometrial thickness, uterine bleeding, R, Medicine, dilatation and curettage, pipelle® biopsy

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
gold
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research