Diagnostic accuracy of two endocervical sampling method: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of endocervical curettage (ECC) and endocervical brushing (EB) in patients referred for colposcopic evaluation for low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, comparative trial was conducted in an Education and Research Hospital, Gynecologic Oncology Clinic. After exclusion of 40 subjects, 208 patients were randomly allocated into ECC (n = 104) and EB (n = 104) groups. A pathologist blinded to the specimen obtaining method evaluated all samples for the primary outcome of sampling adequacy. Secondary outcome measure was pain scores during the sampling was investigated by using visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Ten samples from the ECC group (9.6 %) and 12 samples from the brushing group (12 %) contained scanty endocervical specimen (p = 0.09). Evaluating samples for stroma; it was reported that brushing group had a statistically significantly higher percentage of specimens with no stroma (44 %) than ECC group (24 %) (p = 0.003). Mean and standard deviation of VAS scores during the ECC and EB procedures were 2.55 ± 1.12 and 1.99 ± 0.87, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Endocervical brushing was proved to be as accurate with respect to diagnostic yield as ECC but less painful, evaluating the endocervical canal. It can be an alternative for evaluation of the cervical canal pathology in patients with low grade cytologic abnormalities but devoid of the misinterpretation of stromal invasion; ECC should be preferred in patients with a suspicion of invasive disease.

Abdominal wall endometriosis: a diagnostic dilemma for surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To report 3 cases of endometriosis of the abdominal wall, a disease which is unfamiliar to general surgeons because of the potential pitfalls in its diagnosis. CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND INTERVENTION: Three patients were referred to our general surgery clinic for abdominal masses. Incisional hernia and an abdominal mass were initially suspected in 2 patients, while a preoperative diagnosis of a rectus abdominis hematoma was made in the third because she had no history of previous surgery. Pain was a remarkable complaint in only one of the present cases. Abdominal wall endometriosis was diagnosed only upon histological examination postoperatively. In all cases, ultrasonography revealed hypoechogenic masses, and computed tomography showed that these masses had spiculations, and macroscopic views of the resected masses revealed well-demarcated margins without peritoneal involvement. All patients were treated with wide radical resections followed by polytetrafluoroethylene patch grafting. They were discharged from hospital on either the 2nd or the 3rd postoperative day uneventfully, and during follow-up there were no signs of pelvic endometriosis, as confirmed by ultrasonography, CA 125 measurement, gynecological consultation and examination. CONCLUSION: Since the diagnosis of scar endometrioma is rarely established prior to surgery, endometriosis should be included in the differential diagnosis of masses on the abdominal wall.