DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20183874

Office endometrial sampling: a comparison between Endosampler and Karman cannula number 4

Vijay Zutshi, Monika Gupta, Panchampreet Kaur, Aarzoo Malik, Sufian Zaheer, Puneet Gambhir

Abstract


Background: Endometrial aspiration biopsy is one of the primary steps in diagnostic evaluation of a women presenting with suspected endometrial pathology. The aim of present study was to compare specimen adequacy, ease of doing the procedure, patient comfort and cost effectiveness in office endometrial sampling by endosampler vs Karman cannula number 4.

Methods: This was a prospective comparative study where 102 patients were included. In 50% of patients, endosampler was used and Karman cannula was used in the rest. All procedures were noted, analysed and done in outpatient department and various parameters like specimen adequacy, pain score, ease of doing the procedure were analysed and compared in both groups.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 37.1(±10) years with comparable distribution in the two groups. The parity was comparable in both groups. Authors further analysed the data on the basis of operator experience. The mean score of ease of insertion based on the experience of residents of < 2 years and > 2 years was 3.1±1.48; 4.0±1.96 and 3.5±1.5; 3.7±2 in endosampler and Karman cannula group respectively. This difference was significant in the endosampler group (P: <0.001). The difference in pain score in two groups was not significant.  The specimen obtained was adequate in 32 (62.7 %) patients of the endosampler group and in 39 (76.4 %) patients of the Karman cannula group. (p-0.07). Endosampler is five times costlier than Karman cannula.

Conclusions: Karman cannula is a good and cost-effective sampling device for endometrial biopsy.


Keywords


Abnormal uterine bleeding, Endometrial aspiration, Endometrial biopsy, Endosampler, Karman cannula

Full Text:

PDF

References


Stock RJ, Kanbour A. Prehysterectomy curettage. Obstet Gynecol. 1975;45:537-41.

Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Vicino M, Marello F, Impedovo L, Selvaggi L. Diagnostic inadequacy of dilatation and curettage. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:803-5.

Coulter A, Klassen A, MacKenzie IZ, McPherson K. Diagnostic dilatation and curettage: is it used appropriately?. BMJ. 1993;306:236-9.

Guido RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Rulin MC, Christopherson WA. Pipelle endometrial sampling. Sensitivity in the detection of endometrial cancer. J Reprod Med. 1995;40(8):553-5.

Áron T, Béla S, Puşcaşiu L, Emil M, Chira L. Diagnostic performance of Cornier’pipelle endometrial biopsy in comparison with dilatation and uterine curettage. GINECO RO. 2011;7(2):106-10.

Soeters R, Whittaker J, Dehaeck K. Endometrial sampling: a comparison between the Pipelle® endometrial sampler and the Endosampler®. South Afr J Gynaecol Oncol. 2011;3(1):34-8.

Rodriguez GC, Yaqub N, King ME. 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. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168(1):55-9.

Manganiello PD, Burrows LJ, Dain BJ, Gonzalez J. Vabra aspirator and pipelle endometrial suction curette: a comparison. J Reprod Med. 1998;43(10):889-92.

Cooper JM, Erickson ML. Endometrial sampling techniques in the diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynecol Clinics. 2000;27(2):235-44.

Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, Rosseland LA, Romundstad L, Breivik Hals EK, et al. Assessment of pain. BJA: British J Anaesthesia. 2008;101(1):17-24.

Bajouh OS, Al-Shamrany O, Abduljabbar AH, Abduljabbar HS. Endometrial Sampling Performed by Gynecological Residents in Training. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;4(04):182-5.

Rauf R, Shaheen A, Sadia S, Waqar F, Zafar S, Sultana S, et al. Outpatient endometrial biopsy with Pipelle versus diagnostic dilatation and curettage. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2014;26(2):145-8.

Sanam M, Majid MM. Comparison the diagnostic value of dilatation and curettage versus endometrial biopsy by Pipelle–a clinical trial. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(12):4971-5.

Du J, Li Y, Lv S, Wang Q, Sun C, Dong X, et al. Endometrial sampling devices for early diagnosis of endometrial lesions. J Cancer Res Clinical Oncol. 2016;142(12):2515-22.