RESUMO
No disponible
Assuntos
Adulto , Gravidez , Feminino , Humanos , Útero/cirurgia , Útero/fisiopatologia , Complicações na Gravidez/diagnóstico , Ruptura Espontânea/complicações , Hemorragia Uterina/complicações , Hemorragia Uterina/diagnóstico , Choque/complicações , Veias/lesões , Cesárea/métodos , Rim/patologia , Rim , Hidronefrose/complicações , Laparotomia/métodos , Hemoperitônio/diagnóstico , Histerectomia/tendênciasRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare two endometrial biopsy techniques, based on the quality of material obtained, cost effectiveness, and pain during the procedure. STUDY DESIGN: A single blind, randomized prospective study. RESULTS: A total of 365 women with peri/postmenopausal bleeding were randomized into two groups: 174 biopsied cytospat (C) and 191 biopsied with pipelle (P). Both procedures were then followed by either dilatation and curettage (D&C) or hysterectomy. Pain was evaluated in 379 patients, with the result being better tolerance for P vs. C (3.55 vs. 4.06, P = 0.07). With C, the sensitivity in histological evaluation was 82% for benign endometrium, 60% for endometrial hyperplasia and 60% for corpus uterine neoplasia as compared to the D&C and hysterectomy material. With P the sensitivity was 84, 71 and 60%, respectively for the three diagnoses, as compared to the D&C and hysterectomy material. Insufficient tissue for pathologic evaluation was present in 24% of C, 25% of P and 9.8% of D&C samples. CONCLUSIONS: Cost effectiveness for pipelle is slightly higher than for Cytospat.
