Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Reproductive Medicine
Volume 2014, Article ID 578193, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/578193
Research Article

Adequacy of the Endometrial Samples Obtained by the Uterine Explora Device and Conventional Dilatation and Curettage: A Comparative Study

1Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, King Saud University and King Khalid University Hospital, P.O. Box 7805, Riyadh 11472, Saudi Arabia
2Department of Pathology, King Saud University, Faculty of Medicine and King Khalid University Hospital, P.O. Box 2925 (32), Riyadh 11461, Saudi Arabia
3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, King Saud University and King Khalid University Hospital, P.O. Box 7805, Riyadh 11472, Saudi Arabia
4Sheikh Abdullah Bahamdan’s Research Chair for EBHC-KT, King Saud University and King Khalid University Hospital, P.O. Box 7805, Riyadh 11472, Saudi Arabia

Received 18 August 2013; Accepted 2 December 2013; Published 8 January 2014

Academic Editor: Yves Jacquemyn

Copyright © 2014 Maria Abdulrahim Arafah et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

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.