Amanpreet Kaur, M. Bedi, Parvinder Singh, Pulkita Lamba, Harbhajan Kaur, Vijay Suri
{"title":"异常子宫出血中宫腔镜检查结果与组织病理学检查结果的比较","authors":"Amanpreet Kaur, M. Bedi, Parvinder Singh, Pulkita Lamba, Harbhajan Kaur, Vijay Suri","doi":"10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20240782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Aim was to compare histological diagnosis of differently stained endometrial tissue on chromohysteroscopy.\nMethods: A total of 80 patients diagnosed with AUB and satisfying the study design were included in the study. Hysteroscopy followed by chromohysteroscopy was done using 1% methylene blue. Staining patterns were observed and guided biopsies were taken from differently stained areas and sent for histopathology.\nResults: On chromohysteroscopy, out of the 80 participants, 53 (66.3%) had focal staining and 27 (33.7%) had diffuse staining. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of TVS in diagnosing uterine abnormalities was 51.7%, 45.1%, 34.9%, 62.2% respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for hysteroscopy were 96.6%, 41.2%, 48.3%, 95.5% respectively. The indices for chromohysteroscopy were as follows: sensitivity-69% for focal and 31% for diffuse staining, specificity-49.0% for focal staining and 69.7% for diffuse staining, PPV-43.5% for focal and 33.3% for diffuse staining, NPV-73.5% for focal staining and 62.3% for diffuse staining.\nConclusions: The idea of staining of endometrium and taking a guided biopsy is exciting and is undoubtedly, better than a blind sampling. However, subjecting all the patient of AUB to chromohysteroscopy in order to find a major histopathological difference is questionable and needs larger trials to reach to concrete decision.","PeriodicalId":14225,"journal":{"name":"International journal of reproduction, contraception, obstetrics and gynecology","volume":"55 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of chromohysteroscopy findings with histopathological findings in abnormal uterine bleeding\",\"authors\":\"Amanpreet Kaur, M. Bedi, Parvinder Singh, Pulkita Lamba, Harbhajan Kaur, Vijay Suri\",\"doi\":\"10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20240782\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Aim was to compare histological diagnosis of differently stained endometrial tissue on chromohysteroscopy.\\nMethods: A total of 80 patients diagnosed with AUB and satisfying the study design were included in the study. Hysteroscopy followed by chromohysteroscopy was done using 1% methylene blue. Staining patterns were observed and guided biopsies were taken from differently stained areas and sent for histopathology.\\nResults: On chromohysteroscopy, out of the 80 participants, 53 (66.3%) had focal staining and 27 (33.7%) had diffuse staining. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of TVS in diagnosing uterine abnormalities was 51.7%, 45.1%, 34.9%, 62.2% respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for hysteroscopy were 96.6%, 41.2%, 48.3%, 95.5% respectively. The indices for chromohysteroscopy were as follows: sensitivity-69% for focal and 31% for diffuse staining, specificity-49.0% for focal staining and 69.7% for diffuse staining, PPV-43.5% for focal and 33.3% for diffuse staining, NPV-73.5% for focal staining and 62.3% for diffuse staining.\\nConclusions: The idea of staining of endometrium and taking a guided biopsy is exciting and is undoubtedly, better than a blind sampling. However, subjecting all the patient of AUB to chromohysteroscopy in order to find a major histopathological difference is questionable and needs larger trials to reach to concrete decision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of reproduction, contraception, obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":\"55 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of reproduction, contraception, obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20240782\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of reproduction, contraception, obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20240782","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of chromohysteroscopy findings with histopathological findings in abnormal uterine bleeding
Background: Aim was to compare histological diagnosis of differently stained endometrial tissue on chromohysteroscopy.
Methods: A total of 80 patients diagnosed with AUB and satisfying the study design were included in the study. Hysteroscopy followed by chromohysteroscopy was done using 1% methylene blue. Staining patterns were observed and guided biopsies were taken from differently stained areas and sent for histopathology.
Results: On chromohysteroscopy, out of the 80 participants, 53 (66.3%) had focal staining and 27 (33.7%) had diffuse staining. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of TVS in diagnosing uterine abnormalities was 51.7%, 45.1%, 34.9%, 62.2% respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for hysteroscopy were 96.6%, 41.2%, 48.3%, 95.5% respectively. The indices for chromohysteroscopy were as follows: sensitivity-69% for focal and 31% for diffuse staining, specificity-49.0% for focal staining and 69.7% for diffuse staining, PPV-43.5% for focal and 33.3% for diffuse staining, NPV-73.5% for focal staining and 62.3% for diffuse staining.
Conclusions: The idea of staining of endometrium and taking a guided biopsy is exciting and is undoubtedly, better than a blind sampling. However, subjecting all the patient of AUB to chromohysteroscopy in order to find a major histopathological difference is questionable and needs larger trials to reach to concrete decision.