The Effectiveness and Acceptability of Pipelle Endometrial Sampling versus Classical Dilatation and Curettage: A Three-Year Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and acceptability of Pipelle endometrial sampling in comparison to dilatation and curettage (D&C).

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study including a total of 538 patients with abnormal uterine bleeding who were allocated to be treated using 2 sampling techniques: Pipelle sampler (n = 270) and D&C (n = 268). The primary outcome was the adequacy of both methods and concordance rate with hysterectomy specimens. The secondary outcome included drawbacks and patients' acceptability.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the 2 methods regarding adequacy and concordance rate with hysterectomy (p > 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the requirement of analgesia and overall discomfort (p < 0.001), which was higher in the Pipelle group. No significant statistical difference was recognized between the study groups regarding the occurrence of cervical lacerations, fever or the rate of inadequate intrauterine sampling (p > 0.05). In addition, no significant statistical difference between both procedures was recognized concerning the overall satisfaction rate and the advisability of the procedure to other women (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Under the conditions of this study, Pipelle endometrial sampling is comparable to D&amp;C biopsy in terms of adequacy and concordance rate with hysterectomy except that more pain and a higher overall discomfort rate were associated with it.