The Comparative Efficacy of Endometrial Biopsy using Pipelle and Diagnostic Dilatation & Curettage in Mariano Marcos Memorial Hospital and Medical Center
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37275/bsm.v7i10.871Keywords:
Curettage, Diagnostic dilatation, Endometrial biopsy, PipelleAbstract
Background: The use of Pipelle sampling for endometrial histology and pathology is of some controversy - and vast importance. Pipelle procedures are performed commonly in medical offices when women show abnormal vaginal bleeding. While the method has several advantages over dilatation and curettage (D&C), clinical questions exist on the precision and accuracy of the procedure. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of Pipelle biopsy sampling versus Dilatation & Curettage (D&C) in adequacy of sampling specimen in terms of cost effectiveness, diagnosis success rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.
Methods: A retrospective study was conducted among all enrolled women with abnormal uterine bleeding counselling outpatient and inpatient in MMMHMC Batac from 2016 to 2017. Sample was divided in two groups - those that underwent Pipelle biopsy and those who underwent D&C. Key statistics were computed using SPSS 16.
Results: Cost effectiveness analysis showed that Pipelle biopsy offers a more cost effective alternative with an estimate of one correct diagnosis every P16 spent versus P61 spent for a correct diagnosis using D&C. Both procedures resulted in a 100% likelihood ratio of having the condition with a positive test result, with D&C resulting in a higher diagnosis success rate of 98% (versus 92% for Pipelle) and higher proportion of those who have the disorder, given the procedure tested positive.
Conclusion: Pipelle biopsy offers a more cost effective alternative to D&C. Both procedures resulted in equal probability of having the condition with a positive test result, with D&C resulting in a higher success rate of diagnosis and sensitivity rate, albeit not statistically significant.
Authors
- Melody Nethania Sutedja1*
- Ruth Judith Gay V. Cristobal1
- Maria Constancia Celina C. Ferraris1
- Czarina Juliana L. Alcaraz1
- Gisele V. Gonzales-Acantilado1
- 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mariano Marcos Memorial Hospital and Medical Center, Ilocos Norte, Philippines
Corresponding author Melody Nethania Sutedja — melodynethaniasutedja@gmail.com
Article history
- Submitted
- Accepted
- Published
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright and licensing
Copyright in each article remains with the author(s). Authors grant Bioscientia Medicina: Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research a non-exclusive right of first publication and the right to identify itself as the original publisher. No exclusive transfer of copyright is required.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. Users may copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided appropriate attribution is given, a link to the license is supplied, changes are indicated, and adaptations are distributed under the same license.
The license applies to the article's scholarly content unless a credit line states otherwise. Third-party material may be subject to separate rights. Authors retain patent, trademark, moral, and research-data rights. The copyright year follows the article's publication date.
