Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2010
Cervical polyps: evaluation of routine removal and need for accompanying D&C.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Esim Buyukbayrak Esra, Karageyim Karsidag Ayse Yasemin, Kars Bulent, Sakin Onder, Ozyapi Alper Ayse Gul, Pirimoglu Meltem, Unal Orhan, Turan Cem
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate prevalence of malignancy and dysplasia in cervical polyps and to judge whether cervical polyps need to be removed routinely. Also to investigate if a cervical polyp is an indicator of endometrial pathology and to assess the necessity of performing dilatation and curettage (D&C).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed hospital records of 4,063 cervical polyp cases. Patients' age, menopausal status and pathological findings were recorded. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's χ(2), Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. P value of ≤ 0.05 was accepted significant.
RESULTS: Among 4,063 cervical polyps, only 3 (0.1%) cases of malignancy were encountered which were metastasis from endometrium. There were also dysplastic (0.4%), metaplastic (2.1%), inflammatory (1%) changes. Accompanying endometrial pathologies were: endometrial cancer (0.3%), hyperplasia without atypia (1.3%), endometrial polyp (6.6%). There was statistically significant relation between menopausal status and malignancy of cervical polyps (P = 0.055) malignancy of endometrial cavity (P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Routine removal of cervical polyps, although not mandatory, seems clinically prudent because pathological evaluation is needed to confirm the diagnosis and to rule out other possibilities. 10.9% of postmenopausal patients and 7.8% of premenopausal patients were diagnosed with any endometrial pathology accompanying cervical polyp. Therefore, cervical polyps can be a sign of endometrial disease, especially in postmenopausal women with cervical polyp endometrium should be evaluated more carefully.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed hospital records of 4,063 cervical polyp cases. Patients' age, menopausal status and pathological findings were recorded. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's χ(2), Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. P value of ≤ 0.05 was accepted significant.
RESULTS: Among 4,063 cervical polyps, only 3 (0.1%) cases of malignancy were encountered which were metastasis from endometrium. There were also dysplastic (0.4%), metaplastic (2.1%), inflammatory (1%) changes. Accompanying endometrial pathologies were: endometrial cancer (0.3%), hyperplasia without atypia (1.3%), endometrial polyp (6.6%). There was statistically significant relation between menopausal status and malignancy of cervical polyps (P = 0.055) malignancy of endometrial cavity (P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Routine removal of cervical polyps, although not mandatory, seems clinically prudent because pathological evaluation is needed to confirm the diagnosis and to rule out other possibilities. 10.9% of postmenopausal patients and 7.8% of premenopausal patients were diagnosed with any endometrial pathology accompanying cervical polyp. Therefore, cervical polyps can be a sign of endometrial disease, especially in postmenopausal women with cervical polyp endometrium should be evaluated more carefully.