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.

Linked 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. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, “Investigation of post-menopausal bleeding,” Publication 61, Royal College of Physician, Edinburgh, UK, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  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. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus