Comparison of two endometrial sampling devices during ambulatory hysteroscopy;Evaluation de deux methodes de prelevement endometrial au cours de l'hysteroscopie diagnostique

Journal de Gynecologie Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 433-438

  Agostini, A ^a   Cravello, L ^a   Rojat Habib, M C ^b   Amabile Boulat, J ^b   Roger, V ^a   Bretelle, F ^a   Blanc, B ^a  

^a HÔPITAL DE LA CONCEPTION   (France)

^b TIMONE HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Endometrial biopsy; Endometrial sampling device; Office hysteroscopy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENDOMETRIUM ATROPHY; ENDOMETRIUM BIOPSY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYSTEROSCOPY; INSTRUMENTATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAIN; PIPETTE; POSTMENOPAUSE; TISSUE SECTION; UTERUS DISEASE; BIOPSY; ENDOMETRIUM; EVALUATION; PATHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; VACUUM;

BIOPSY; ENDOMETRIUM; EVALUATION STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTEROSCOPY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; VACUUM;

EID: 0032696113     PISSN: 03682315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Koonings PP, Moyer DL, Grimes DA. A randomized clinical trial comparing pipelle and tissu-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75: 293-295.
2. Hill GA, Herbert CM III, Parker RA, Wentz AC. Comparison of late luteal phase endometrial biopsies using the Novak curette or Pipelle endometrial suction curette. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 443-5.
3. Banos JE, Bosch F, Canella M, Bassols A, B F, Bigorra J. Acceptability of visual analogue scales in the clinical setting : a comparison with verbal rating scales in postoperative pain. Meth Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 1989; 11: 123-7.
4. Stovall TG, Ling FW, Morgan PL. A prospective, randomized comparison of the Pipelle endometrial sampling device with the Novak curette. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 1287-9.
5. Antoni J, Folch E, Costa J, Foradada CM, Cayuela E, Combalia N, et al. Comparison of cytospat and pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments. Eur J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 72: 57-61.
6. Check JH, Chase JS, Nowroozi K, Wu CH, Chern R. Clinical evaluation of the pipelle endometrial suction curette for timed endometrial biopsies. J Reprod Med 1989; 34: 218-20.
7. Silver MM, Miles P, Rosa C. Comparison of Novak and Pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 828-30.
8. Kaunitz AM, Masciello A, Ostrowski M, Rovira EZ. Comparison of endometrial biopsy with the endometrial Pipelle and Vabra aspiration. J Reprod Med 1988; 33: 427-31.
9. Fothergill DJ, Brown VA, Hill AS. Histological sampling of the endometrium, a comparison between formal curettage and the Pipelle sampler. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 779-80.
10. Goldchmit R, Katz Z, Blickstein I, Caspi B, Dgani R. The accuracy of endometrial pipelle sampling with and without sonographic measurement of endometrial thickness. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 727-30.
11. De Meuron A, De Grandi P, Ruzicka J, Gloor E. Le diagnostic précoce des lésions prémalignes de l'endomètre. Évaluation d'un dispositif de prélèvement intra-utérin (Inocurette) par comparaison avec le curetage explorateur. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1986; 15: 1035-42.
12. Vuopala S., Kauppila A, Mikkonen M, Stenback F. Screening of asymptomatic postmenopausal women for gynecological malignancies, with special reference to endometrial sampling methods. Arch Gynecol 1982; 231: 119-27.
13. Archer DF, Mc Intyre-Seltman K, Wilbom WW, Dowling EA, Cone F, Creasy GW, et al. Endometrial morphology in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 317-322.