Obstetrics and gynecology · 2000
Comparison of endocervical curettage and endocervical brushing.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Klam S, Arseneau J, Mansour N, Franco E, Ferenczy A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare endocervical brushing with endocervical curettage with respect to diagnostic yield by histology and patient discomfort.
METHODS: Nonpregnant women referred for colposcopy because of abnormal Papanicolaou test results were randomized to endocervical sampling with either a metal curette (endocervical curettage [ECC]) or an endocervical brush. Extensive endocervical canal brushing was performed. All samples were submitted for histologic study. Results were evaluated against the histologic findings in electroconization specimens in a masked fashion. Pain scores were recorded using Melzack's Present Pain Intensity Scale.
RESULTS: During the study period, 315 patients were randomized to the techniques: 157 to ECC and 158 to endocervical brushing. Of the 315 patients, 147 also underwent electroconization. Overall false-positive rates were 28.6% for endocervical brushing and 30.8% for ECC. False positives were due to contamination of the endocervical sample by lesional epithelium near the external os. The proportion of scanty specimens obtained by endocervical brushing (7. 6%) was higher than that obtained by ECC (2.5%) (P =.041). One sample obtained by brushing was insufficient for diagnosis; none obtained by ECC were insufficient. There were no statistically significant differences in the median pain scores between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: The techniques were similar in terms of diagnostic yield and patient discomfort. Endocervical brushing had lower false-positive rates than those reported in the literature for cytologic analysis. Although ECC remains the method of choice for evaluation of the endocervical canal, brushing is an acceptable alternative.
METHODS: Nonpregnant women referred for colposcopy because of abnormal Papanicolaou test results were randomized to endocervical sampling with either a metal curette (endocervical curettage [ECC]) or an endocervical brush. Extensive endocervical canal brushing was performed. All samples were submitted for histologic study. Results were evaluated against the histologic findings in electroconization specimens in a masked fashion. Pain scores were recorded using Melzack's Present Pain Intensity Scale.
RESULTS: During the study period, 315 patients were randomized to the techniques: 157 to ECC and 158 to endocervical brushing. Of the 315 patients, 147 also underwent electroconization. Overall false-positive rates were 28.6% for endocervical brushing and 30.8% for ECC. False positives were due to contamination of the endocervical sample by lesional epithelium near the external os. The proportion of scanty specimens obtained by endocervical brushing (7. 6%) was higher than that obtained by ECC (2.5%) (P =.041). One sample obtained by brushing was insufficient for diagnosis; none obtained by ECC were insufficient. There were no statistically significant differences in the median pain scores between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: The techniques were similar in terms of diagnostic yield and patient discomfort. Endocervical brushing had lower false-positive rates than those reported in the literature for cytologic analysis. Although ECC remains the method of choice for evaluation of the endocervical canal, brushing is an acceptable alternative.