Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Endometrial sampling in low-risk patients with abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-synthesis

BMC Family Practice201819:135

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0817-3

  • Received: 27 September 2017
  • Accepted: 10 July 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

One million women per year seek medical advice for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in the United Kingdom. Many low-risk patients who could be managed exclusively in primary care are referred to hospital based gynaecology services. Performing endometrial sampling (ES) in the community may improve care, reduce the rate of referrals and minimise costs. We aimed to search and synthesise the literature on the effectiveness of ES (Pipelle versus other devices) in managing AUB in low-risk patients.

Methods

We undertook an electronic literature search in MEDLINE via OvidSP, Scopus, and Web of Science for relevant English-language articles from 1984 to 2016 using a combination of MeSH and keywords. Two reviewers independently pre-selected 317 articles and agreed on 60 articles reporting data from over 7300 patients. Five themes were identified: sample adequacy, test performance, pain and discomfort, cost-effectiveness, and barriers and complications of office ES.

Results

Pipelle seems to perform as well as dilation and curettage and, as well or better than other ES devices in terms of sampling adequacy and sensitivity. It also seems to be better regarding pain/discomfort and costs. However, Pipelle can disrupt the sonographic appearance of the endometrium and may be limited by cervical stenosis, pelvic organ prolapse and endometrial atrophy.

Conclusions

The current evidence supports the use of Pipelle in the management of low-risk women presenting in the outpatient setting with symptomatic AUB when combined with clinical assessment and ultrasound scanning. However, the implications of its widespread use in primary care are uncertain and more research is required.

Keywords

  • Pipelle
  • Endometrial sampling
  • Abnormal uterine bleeding
  • Endometrial cancer
  • Endometrial hyperplasia
  • Premenopausal
  • Perimenopausal
  • Dilation and curettage

Background

Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), traditionally defined as uterine bleeding that is abnormal in volume, regularity, and/or timing [1] is common and affects 14–25% of women of reproductive age [24]. In the UK, approximately 1 million women seek medical advice for AUB every year, mostly in general practice [5, 6] and even though most cases could potentially be managed exclusively in primary care [7, 8], AUB is the fourth most common reason for referral to UK gynaecological services [6, 9, 10]. AUB has a major impact on quality of life [7], leads to 3.5 million days of work absence [11], and generates significant health care costs. Hospital referrals and hysterectomies are the major components of the £65 million/year treatment costs for AUB [10].

Most cases of AUB are benign and amenable to office-based treatments [12, 13]. However, patients often present with a myriad of symptoms, and their assessment requires training and expertise [13, 14]. The causes of AUB can be summarised using the PALM-COEIN acronym: polyps, adenomyosis, leiomyoma/fibroids, malignancy (and hyperplasia), coagulopathy, ovulatory disorders, endometrial, iatrogenic, and not otherwise classified [1].

Some patients who present with AUB will have endometrial hyperplasia or cancer which is the commonest gynaecological malignancy in the Western world. Even though the incidence rises after menopause, it can occur at all ages and 7% of cases are under 50 [15, 16]. This percentage seems to be rising with increasing prevalence of obesity and diabetes [17, 18].

In the UK, women with AUB who are deemed at high risk of endometrial cancer such as those with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) or family history of gynaecological neoplasms, should be referred to secondary care [19]. For low-risk premenopausal women the guidance is not as clear. Although urgent referral is not required [20], national guidelines recommend that endometrial sampling (ES) should be performed in women over 40–45 years to exclude cancer [21, 22], but they do not specify whether ES should be performed in primary or secondary care [22].

In the UK, ES for AUB patients has not been traditionally undertaken in primary care. For many years, the standard management was dilation and curettage (D&C) in hospital under general anaesthesia [2325]. However, the need for admission and the risks of perforation and haemorrhage made D&C unpopular [23, 25] and various ES devices were developed such as the Novak (a silastic cannula with a bevelled lateral opening [26]), the Tis-u-Trap (a plastic curette with suction [27]), the Vabra Aspirator (a stainless steel cannula connected to a vacuum pump [28]), the Endorette (a plastic cannula with multiple openings [29]), the Tao Brush (a sheath brush device [30]), the Cytospat (a polypropylene cannula with a rhomboid head [31]), the Accurette (a quadrilateral-shaped curette with four cutting edges [32]) and the Pipelle, the most widely used device in the UK (a flexible plastic tube with a distal circular port [27]).

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify existing evidence about the effectiveness of Pipelle compared with other ES techniques for assessing low-risk women with AUB which could inform the development of new care pathways in primary care.

Why this study was necessary

Endometrial sampling is thought to be a safe and effective method for histological assessment of the endometrium. It is used as an alternative to the more invasive method of D&C. This is the first review to focus on AUB in low-risk pre- and perimenopausal women. We conclude that ES is a valuable tool in the assessment of these patients and that Pipelle is the best outpatient device available. The evidence supports the use of Pipelle in the outpatient setting but more research is required to assess its impact if introduced as routine management of AUB in the community.

Methods

Literature search

We used the PICO approach to develop a systematic search strategy [33]. We searched MEDLINE via OvidSP, Scopus, and Web of Science. For Medline, key concepts were identified (endometrial hyperplasia/cancer, abnormal uterine bleeding, endometrial sampling), a list of synonyms was generated for each concept and these lists were used to identify MeSH terms for the search (Additional file 1). Similar search strategies were used for Scopus and Web of Science (Additional file 1), always limited to papers from 1984 (when Pipelle was first introduced [34]) to 2016, written in English and involving humans.

We included papers investigating ES in women with AUB. We also considered studies in patients with known cancer; although these studies do not inform the indication of ES in primary care, they were an important source to evaluate test performance. We included review articles and opinion pieces. We excluded papers exclusively analysing postmenopausal patients, papers where the indication was assessment of fertility or recurrent miscarriage and papers where ES was assisted by hysteroscopy (unless this was used as a comparator to blind ES).

The initial search generated 173 results for Medline, 240 for Scopus, and 221 for Web of Science, totalling 634 search hits across all databases, 317 of which were excluded for duplication. The remaining 317 articles were assessed for inclusion using the titles and abstracts. The assessment was independently repeated by a second reviewer and a consensus was reached. After this process, 257 papers were excluded and the full text of 60 papers were read. Twenty-two further papers were excluded while another 22 papers were added from reference search, giving a final list of 60 papers. This selection included 16 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 26 prospective studies, 6 retrospective studies, 5 reviews, 2 meta-analyses, 1 survey, and 4 brief communications and letters to the editor, which were included in the final analysis providing data over 7300 women (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram for study selection

Bias risk assessment

The quality of the RCTs was assessed using the standard Cochrane Risk of Bias tool [35], and the quality of observational studies was analysed with the modified Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) quality assessment criteria [36].

Results

Risk of Bias / quality of studies

The overall quality of the RCTs was poor (n = 4) to moderate (n = 12), no high quality studies were identified. For observational studies, the risk of bias ranged from 31 to 79% with a mean weighted score 52.8% SD ± 11.8% which again suggests overall moderate quality [37]. See additional online content for tabulated assessments of individual studies (Additional file 2: TableS1 and 2, Additional file 2).

Five themes

We identified five major themes in the literature: (1) sample adequacy (defined as enough tissue to be analysed by pathologists [38]); (2) test performance when compared with hysterectomy and D&C; (3) acceptability by the patient in terms of pain experienced during sampling; (4) the costs of taking outpatient endometrial biopsies; and (5) the barriers and complications of performing office ES.

All studies, except for one, were carried out in specialised outpatient gynaecology clinics or hospital services (secondary care) [39]. Only one study looked exclusively at premenopausal women [40]. The rest reported on cohorts of both pre- and post-menopausal women or they did not present results based on menopausal status. Most studies included women with symptomatic AUB and no risk of endometrial carcinoma. However, five studies targeted women with endometrial cancer to correlate pre-operative Pipelle with the hysterectomy histopathology [4145]. Studies are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1

Comparison of the RCTs, prospective and retrospective studies included in this literature review. Papers have been grouped by intervention/ comparator

Study

Type of study

Age of participants (mean ± SD)

Intervention (n) vs Comparator (n)

Outcome

Pain

Cost

Pipelle versus D&C +/− Hysterectomy

[23] Rauf et al. Pakistan 2014

RCT

46.3 ± 4.45

Pipelle (102) vs D&C (101)

Adequacy

Pipelle 98%

D&C 100%

Pipelle less painful

Pipelle cheaper

[46] Liu et al. China 2015

Prospective Sequential

43.6

Pipelle vs D&C (245)

Adequacy

Pipelle 91.02%

D&C 92.24%

Pipelle less painful

N/A

[47] Gungorduk et al. Turkey 2013

Prospective

Pipelle: 49.8 ± 6.1

D&C: 48.2 ± 6.5

Pipelle + hysterectomy (78) vs D&C + hysterectomy (189)

Adequacy

Pipelle 95%

D&C 96%

Concordance

Pipelle + hysterectomy 62%

D&C + hysterectomy 67%

Pipelle less painful

Pipelle cheaper

[48] Kazandi et al.

Turkey

2012

Prospective Sequential

48 ± 9.43

Pipelle + hysterectomy

Vs

D&C + hysterectomy

(66)

Adequacy

Pipelle 93%

D&C 96%

Concordance

Pipelle and D&C 66%

Pipelle & hysterectomy 64%

Pipelle less painful

Pipelle cheaper

[49] Demirkiran et al. Turkey 2012

Prospective

45.3

Pipelle + hysterectomy (212) vs D&C + hysterectomy

(161)

Adequacy

Pipelle 97%

D&C98%

Concordance

Pipelle and D&C 84%

Pipelle & hysterectomy 67%

D&C and hysterectomy 80%

Pipelle less painful

Pipelle cheaper

[43] Sany et al. UK 2011

Retrospective

?

Pipelle + hysterectomy vs D&C + hysterectomy (total 191)

Concordance

Both techniques 78%

N/A

N/A

[45] Daud et al. UK 2011

Retrospective

55.7 ± 11.4

Pipelle ± hysterectomy (75) vs D&C ± hysterectomy (220)

Concordance

Pipelle + hysterectomy 76%

D&C + hysterectomy 86%

N/A

N/A

[24] Fakhar et al. Pakistan 2008

Prospective Sequential

45.4 ± 7.2

Pipelle versus (D&C) (100)

Adequacy

Pipelle 98%

D&C 100%

NPV for endometrial carcinoma

Pipelle 100%

N/A (both techniques under GA)

Pipelle cheaper

[44] Huang et al. USA 2006

Retrospective + Letter

?

Pipelle + hysterectomy (253) vs D&C + hysterectomy (93)

Concordance

Pipelle and hysterectomy 93.8% (low grade cancer) & 99.2% (high grade cancer)

D&C and hysterectomy 97% (low grade cancer) & 100% (high grade cancer)

N/A

N/A

[37] Macones et al. 2006

[66] Machado et al. Spain 2002

Retrospective

Post-menopausal (68)

Pre- or peri-menopausal (100)

Pipelle (168) vs D&C (92) ± Hysterectomy (76)

Accuracy

Sensitivity 84.2%

Specificity 99.1%

N/A

N/A

[51] Kavak et al. Turkey 1996

Prospective

50.8 ± 7.8

Pipelle ± TVS (78) vs D&C (78)

Concordance

Sensitivity: 73% (increased to 90% with TVS)

Specificity: 100%

N/A

N/A

[50] Ben-Baruch et al. Israel 1993

Prospective

Pre- and post-menopausal

Pipelle (172) vs D&C (97)

Adequacy

Pipelle 90.6%

D&C 68%

N/A

N/A

[68] Sanam et al. Iran 2015

Prospective

>  35

Pipelle (130) vs D&C (130)

Concordance

Pipelle and D&C 94%

Adequacy

Pipelle 84.6%

D&C 90%

N/A

Pipelle cheaper

[75] Gordon New Zealand 1999

Prospective

47.2 ± 1.8

Pipelle (100) vs D&C or hysterectomy (n =?)

Adequacy

Pipelle 67%

N/A

N/A

[69] Goldchmit et al. Israel 1993

Prospective Sequential

48.1

Pipelle and TVS vs D&C (176)

Concordance

Pipelle & D&C 90% (increased to 92% with TVS)

N/A

N/A

[52] Abdelazim et al. Turkey 2013

Prospective Sequential

44.5

Pipelle vs D&C (143)

Adequacy

Pipelle 97.9%

D&C 100%

NPV for endometrial polyp

Pipelle 89.6%

N/A

N/A

[72] Shams Pakistan 2012

Prospective Sequential

47.94

Pipelle vs D&C (50)

N/A

Pipelle less painful

Pipelle cheaper

[53] Rezk et al. Egypt 2016

Prospective

Pipelle: 47.2 ± 3.8

D&C: 46.9 ± 4.1

Pipelle (270) vs D&C (268)

Adequacy

No difference (p˃0.05)

D&C less painful

N/A

Pipelle versus Vabra +/− Hysterectomy

[54] Eddowes et al. UK 1990

Prospective Sequential

41.6

Pipelle vs Vabra Aspirator (100)

Adequacy

Pipelle 88%

Vabra Aspirator 88%

Pipelle less painful

Pipelle cheaper

[55] Naim et al. Malaysia 2007

RCT

> 45

Pipelle (76) vs Vabra Aspirator (71)

Adequacy

Pipelle 73.3%

Vabra 52.4%

N/A

Pipellle cheaper

[28] Kaunitz et al. USA 1988

Prospective Sequential

46

Pipelle vs Vabra (56)

Adequacy

Pipelle & Vabra 91%

Concordance

Pipelle & Vabra 89%

Pipelle less painful

Pipelle cheaper

[56] Rodriguez et al. USA 1993

RCT

?

Pipelle (12) vs Vabra (13) vs Hysterectomy (25)

Surface being sampled:

Pipelle 4.2%

Vabra 41.6%

N/A

N/A

Pipelle versus Tao Brush+/− Hysteroscopy

[30] Williams et al. UK 2008

RCT Sequential

Moderate risk: 45.2 (SE 0.26)

For moderate risk Pipelle (34)

Tao Brush (29)

Adequacy

Both techniques 84%

No significant difference for premenopausal

Tao Brush less painful

N/A

[57] Critchley et al. UK 2004

RCT

Moderate risk: pre-menopausal ˃40 or < 40 with risk for endometrial cancer

Low risk

Pipelle vs Tao Brush

Moderate risk

(Total 326)

Low risk (Total 157)

± hysteroscopy ± TVS

Successful completion of investigation:

Pipelle 85%

Adequacy of sample with Pipelle:

Moderate risk 79%

Tao Brush less painful than Pipelle

Minimal difference

[58] Yang et al. USA 2003

Prospective Sequential

24–86

Pipelle (79) vs Tao Brush (79)

Factors affecting sensitivity: tumour size, type, location within the uterus, sampling mechanism and preparation method

N/A

N/A

[59] Del Priore et al. USA 2001

RCT Sequential

Pre-menopausal: 46

Post-menopausal: 61

Tao Brush vs Pipelle (50)

Sensitivity:

Pipelle 86%

Tao Brush 95.5%

Specificity:

Both 100%

N/A

Tao Brush cheaper than D&C

[60] Yang et al. USA 2000

Prospective Sequential

58

Tao Brush vs Tao Brush + Pipelle (25)

Adequacy

Tao Brush 98%

Pipelle 88%

Tao Brush less painful

Comparable

Pipelle versus Novak

[40] Henig et al. USA 1989

RCT

Pre-menopausal

Pipelle (50) Vs Novak (50)

Adequacy

Pipelle 94%

Novak 98%

Better tolerance with Pipelle

N/A

[26] Stovall et al. USA 1991

RCT

Pipelle: 40

Novak: 44

Pipelle (149) vs Novak (126)

Adequacy

Pipelle 87.2%

Novak 90.5%

Pipelle less painful

Novak might be cheaper

[61] Silver et al. USA 1991

RCT Sequential

28–76

1st Pipelle then Novak (26) vs 1st Novak then Pipelle (29)

Adequacy Similar

Pipelle less painful

N/A

Pipelle versus Hysterectomy

[67] Guido et al. USA 1995

Prospective Sequential

61

Pipelle vs Hysterectomy

(71)

Adequacy

Pipelle 97%

Concordance

Pipelle & hysterectomy 83%

N/A

N/A

[42] Ferry et al. UK 1993

Prospective Sequential

?

Pipelle vs Hysterectomy (37)

Concordance

Pipelle & hysterectomy 67%

N/A

N/A

[41] G Zorlu et al. Turkey 1994

Prospective Sequential

51

Pipelle vs Hysterectomy (26)

Concordance

Pipelle & hysterectomy 95%

Mild pain and discomfort with Pipelle

N/A

Pipelle versus Explora +/− Accurette

[62] Leclair et al. USA 2011

RCT

Pipelle: 45.2 ± 7.3

Explora: 46.1 ± 7.7

Pipelle (37) vs

Explora (32)

Adequacy

Pipelle 91%

Explora 97%

No differences seen

N/A

[32] Lipscomb et al. USA 1994

RCT

N/A

Pre- and post-menopausal

Pipelle (85) vs Accurette (81) vs Explora (82)

Adequacy

Pipelle 85.2%

Accurette 72.5%

Explora 85.4%

No significant difference in pain score

N/A

Pipelle versus Infant Feeding Tube (IFT)

[63] Bhide et al. UK 2007

Prospective

?

Pipelle (29) vs IFT (31)

Adequacy

Pipelle 73%

IFT 71%

Less pain with IFT

N/A

Pipelle Mark 2 versus Pipelle Mark 2 + hysteroscopy

[71] Polena et al. France 2006

Prospective

Sequential

50

Pipelle Mark 2 vs Pipelle Mark 2 ± hysteroscopy (97)

Adequacy of Pipelle Mark 2

88.7%

No difference with conventional Pipelle

Slightly more expensive than conventional Pipelle

Pipelle versus Tis-u-Trap

[27] Koonings et al. USA 1990

RCT

Pipelle: 42.9

Tis-u-trap: 42.3

Pipelle + hysterectomy (74) vs Tis-u-trap + hysterectomy (75)

Adequacy

Pipelle 87.8%

Tis-u-trap 84%

Concordance

Pipelle & hysterectomy 85%

Tis-u-trap & hysterectomy 92%

N/A

Pipelle cheaper

Pipelle versus Endorette

[29] Moberger et al. Sweden 1998

RCT Sequential

57.5 ± 11.5

Pipelle vs Endorette

(152)

Adequacy and concordance

No difference

No significant difference

N/A

Pipelle versus Cytospat +/− Hysterectomy

[31] Antoni et al. Spain 1996

RCT

48.6 ± 9

Pipelle ± hysterectomy or D&C (191) vs Cytospat ± hysterectomy or D&C (174)

Adequacy

Pipelle 75%

Cytospat 76%

Concordance

Pipelle: Benign 84%, Hyperplasia 71%, Malignancy 60%

Cytospat: Benign 82%, Hyperplasia 60%, Malignancy 60%

Better tolerance for Pipelle

Pipelle cheaper

Pipelle versus D&C +/− Hysteroscopy +/− TV US

[85] Tahir et al. UK 1999

RCT

35

Inpatient: Hysteroscopy & D&C (200) vs Outpatient: Pipelle +/− TV US +/− Hysteroscpy (200)

Adequacy

No difference

Concordance

Inpatient: 100&

Outpatient: 82&

More pain in outpatient

N/A

Others

[73] Trolice et al. USA 2000

RCT Anaesthesia for Pipelle

Lidocaine: 42.1 ± 11.9/ Saline: 44.9 ± 12.5

Lidocaine (19) vs Saline (22)

Significant reduction of pain with lidocaine

Less pain with intervention

N/A

[34] Cornier France 1984

Brief communication

Mostly pre-menopausal

Pipelle (250)

No control

Useful for histologic dating of the endometrium

Little discomfort

Low cost

[74] Frishman USA 1990

Letter in response to study [27]

N/A

Pipelle versus Tis-u-Trap

N/A

N/A

Pipelle cheaper

[38] Mc Cluggage Northern Ireland 2006

Review

N/A

Pipelle versus other ES

Difficulties of processing outpatient ES samples

N/A

N/A

[79] Van Den Bosch Belgium 2005

Prospective sequential

Pre-menopausal: 41.6 ± 8.7

Post-menopausal: 59 ± 9.9

US before and after Pipelle (99)

Thickness of the endometrium

ET on average 0.4 mm less after performing Pipelle

N/A

N/A

[76] Brandner et al. Germany 2000

Review

N/A

N/A

Progression of endometrial lesions (potential limitations for ES)

N/A

N/A

[80] Dijkhuizen et al. The Netherlands 2000

Meta-analysis

39 studies including 7914 patients

Different ES

Pipelle is superior to other ES for diagnosing cancer/ hyperplasia

N/A

N/A

[25] Cooper et al. USA 2000

Review

N/A

N/A

Directed biopsy with Hysteroscopy: most accurate ES (not for primary care)

N/A

N/A

[14] Farquhar et al. New Zealand 1996

Survey

68 replies from O&G consultants (48% of all contestants)

N/A

Management of menorrhagia in primary care

N/A

N/A

[78] Youssif et al. Australia 1995

Review

N/A

N/A

Effectiveness and safety of Pipelle

N/A

N/A

[77] Dantas et al. Brazil 1994

Letter

Nurses vs doctors performing Pipelle

N/A

Adequacy No difference

N/A

N/A

[82] Clark et al. UK 2002

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Mixed pre- (21%) and pos-tmenopausal (79%)

Pipelle vs other outpatient techniques

Likelihood ratio of endometrial cancer when Pipelle is:

-ve: 0.1

+ve: 64.6

N/A

N/A

[86] Ahonkallio et al. Finland 2009

Prospective

Range 47–52 Post ablation

Pipelle (57)

Adequacy

29% failure If

endometrium < 5 mm

5% failure if endometrium > 5 mm

N/A

N/A

[81] Du et al. China 2016

Review

N/A

N/A

Most appropriate ES devices for endometrial lesions

Little discomfort

N/A

[64] Masood et al. Pakistan 2015

Cross sectional

Pre- and post-menopausal 35–48

Pipelle (126) vs no comparator

Adequacy

Pipelle 96.82%

N/A

Cost-effective

[39] Seamark UK 1998

Prospective

≥40

42–74

Primary care population

Pipelle (38) vs no comparator

Adequacy

Pipelle 76%

N/A

N/A

[70]Seto UK 2016

Retrospective

Pre-menopausal 46.1 ± 4.6

Post-menopausal

57.2 ± 8.1

Pipelle against hysteroscopy

Positive predictive value for endometrial polyp

Pipelle (pre-menopausal) 53.7%

N/A

N/A

[65] Piatek et al. Poland 2016

Retrospective

Pre- and post-menopausal

Pipelle (312) vs no comparator

Adequacy

83.01%

N/A

N/A

ES Endometrial sampling, AUB Abnormal uterine bleeding, RCT Randomized controlled trials, US Transvaginal ultrasound, N/A Non-applicable,? Unknown

Sample adequacy

Overall, the literature showed that the adequacy of material retrieved for histological analysis with Pipelle was comparable to D&C and superior to most of the other devices in pre-menopausal women. Ten studies [23, 24, 4653] assessed Pipelle against D&C in premenopausal women, reporting rates of adequacy ranging from 89.74% [51] to 98% [23, 24] (Table 1).

Three studies compared the sample adequacy of Pipelle and Vabra Aspirator [28, 54, 55]. One of these studies [55] showed better rates for Pipelle (73.3% versus 52.4%, P = 0.02) whereas the remaining two could not identify any significant difference between both techniques (one study reported 91% for both techniques [28] whereas the other showed 89.79% for Vabra versus 88% for Pipelle [54], no P values provided) (Table 1). We also found a RCT which reported that Pipelle despite being equal or superior to Vabra in terms of sample adequacy only assesses 4.2% of the endometrium versus 41.6% with Vabra [56].

Five studies including mixed cohorts of pre- and postmenopausal women compared sample adequacy between Pipelle and Tao Brush [30, 5760]. Despite one study suggesting that Tao Brush bendable wire should improve sampling of the uterine lateral walls when compared to Pipelle more rigid structure, none of the studies showed significant differences in premenopausal populations [58] (Table 1).

Two studies [40, 61] also compared Pipelle to Novak and found no statistically significant difference in terms of adequacy of sample, which varied from 83 to 94% for Pipelle and from 85 to 98% for Novak [40, 61] (Table 1). Six additional studies did not find a significant difference when comparing Pipelle with other less popular ES techniques such as Explora [32, 62] (85.4–97% for Explora versus 85.2–91% for Pipelle), Tis-u-trap [27] (88% for Pipelle versus 84% for Tis-u-Trap P = 0.5), Endorette [29] (56% for Endorette versus 43% for Pipelle), infant feeding tube [63] (73% for Pipelle versus 71% for IFT) and Cytospat [31] (Pipelle 74.9% versus 75.9% for Cytospat).

Three studies [39, 64, 65] assessed the ability of Pipelle to retrieve enough tissue for histological analysis without comparing it to other devices, and reported a success rate of 76% in GP practices [39], and a range from 83.01 to 96.82% in secondary care [64, 65] (Table 1).

Test performance

Nine studies compared the histopathological diagnosis of pre-operative Pipelle and D&C with the final results from hysterectomy (the gold standard diagnostic technique for uterine disorders) [41, 4345, 4749, 66, 67]. For Pipelle, the sensitivity ranged from 62% [47] to 99.2% [44] and for D&C sensitivity varied from 67% [47] to 100% [44]. One of these studies applied Pipelle and D&C sequentially before hysterectomy [48], while the rest were multi-arm studies [41, 4345, 47, 49, 66, 67] (Table 1).

At least 5 studies [43, 48, 49, 68, 69] also reported on the concordance between Pipelle and D&C with values that ranged from 66% [48] to 94% [68].

One retrospective study which compared Pipelle samples suggestive of endometrial polyps with subsequent hysteroscopically-guided polypectomies reported Pipelle had a positive predictive value of 55.3% for sampling polyps in premenopausal women [70]. Pipelle has also been reported to have 100% negative predictive value (NPV) for endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia [24] and up to 99.2% NPV for endometritis and 89.6% for endometrial polyps [52] (Table 1).

Pain / discomfort

Most studies included in this review performed ES on awake patients, but only 23 studies formally assessed patients’ pain using visual pain analogue scales and questionnaires (Table 1). A total of 15 studies reported that most patients experienced minimal discomfort with Pipelle [23, 26, 28, 31, 34, 40, 41, 4649, 54, 61, 71, 72], three did not find any significant difference between Pipelle and Explora [32, 62] and Pipelle and Endorette [29], three concluded that Tao Brush was better tolerated than Pipelle [30, 57, 60] and one study showed less discomfort when using an infant feeding tube as a prototype [63]. A RCT also reported that paracervical lidocaine during Pipelle may decrease pain when compared to placebo [73] (Table 1).

Costs of outpatient endometrial sampling

A total of 17 studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of Pipelle though none formally provided a health economic analysis [23, 24, 2628, 31, 4749, 54, 55, 57, 60, 68, 71, 72, 74]. Some of the factors they considered when assessing the total cost of ES were the need for general anaesthesia and hospital admission [23, 72] and the cost of operative hysteroscopy/ D&C following a failed office ES or an inadequate sample [55]. Fifteen studies showed Pipelle was cheaper than the alternative ES [23, 24, 2628, 31, 4749, 54, 55, 57, 68, 72, 74] and two did not find significant differences between Pipelle and Pipelle Mark 2 [71], and Pipelle and Tao Brush [60]. Two studies concluded that the Vabra was cheaper than Pipelle given its multiple use [26] but when all costs were considered including the need for follow-up for failed procedures, the average cost of Pipelle per patient was approximately 30% cheaper than the Vabra aspirator [55] (Table 1).

Barriers and complications to endometrial sampling in primary care

Several limitations to successful ES were reported including cervical stenosis and pelvic organ prolapse which hindered the access to the uterine cavity [24, 75] as well as focal endometrial pathology (e.g. endometrial polyps and submucosal fibroids) and endometrial atrophy which reduces sample adequacy [30, 46, 69, 75, 76]. Lack of experience was also linked to inadequate sampling with higher failure rates seen in registrars (39%) than in consultants (25%), (P = 0.13)) [75]. However, a study which compared sample adequacy between nurses (83.3%) and doctors (80%), P > 0.05, concluded that with the right training the ability to perform successful Pipelle is independent of professional category [77].

While few complications have been associated with Pipelle [73]. [78], mainly discomfort and false negative results, a study showed that Pipelle makes the endometrium approximately 0.4 mm thinner and creates echogenic spots which can be misinterpreted as sonographic lesions if the ultrasound is not performed prior to ES [79] (Table 1).

Discussion

Our aim was to search and synthesise the whole range of literature on ES in AUB in low-risk patients to guide further research and develop new evidence-based care pathways in primary care. Overall, the evidence that we have identified supports the use of ES in the outpatient setting and is a valuable source for the development of new care pathways in primary care.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first systematic review to primarily focus on the role of ES in assessing and managing AUB in low-risk women in the outpatient setting [25, 78, 8082]. The available evidence shows that when Pipelle is combined with clinical assessment and ultrasound findings, it becomes a valuable tool for investigating AUB in low-risk women. Pipelle seems to perform as well or better than any other ES device in terms of sampling adequacy and sensitivity, with comparable results to D&C which for years was the standard technique for obtaining endometrial tissue in patients with AUB [78]. Furthermore, Pipelle seems to be cost-effective and better tolerated in terms of pain/discomfort [83]. However, its use has shown to be limited by cervical stenosis, pelvic organ prolapse and endometrial atrophy [24, 75]. Since Pipelle causes changes in the endometrium, it should not be performed before USS [79], and if the ultrasound reports localised lesions, a hospital referral for a hysteroscopy-guided biopsy may prove more useful than performing a blind Pipelle [84] given its limited sensitivity for focal lesions [47, 70].

Despite our robust and thorough literature search, we have noted some limitations in the available evidence. We only identified one study which was conducted on a primary care population by general practitioners [39] and one study which looked exclusively at premenopausal patients [40] and therefore, our conclusions are mainly based on studies which were carried out in either outpatient specialised clinics or hospital departments on a mixed cohort of pre- and postmenopausal women. Many of the studies that we identified were of poor or moderate methodological quality with wide-ranging inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Additional file 2). This heterogeneity may partly be responsible for the significant variability seen in terms of the sensitivity and specificity of Pipelle for detecting endometrial hyperplasia/cancer.

A meta-analysis was beyond the scope of this paper but critical appraisal and analysis of pooled data from diagnostic studies is an important next step in establishing the utility of ES. Given the limited information about the true test performance of ES in the community, it is not possible for clinicians to quantify the risk of hyperplasia/cancer (or other pathology) based only on ES. This is especially pertinent when the sample result is normal but the patient is still symptomatic; clinicians should then continue to consider the possibility of false negative results e.g. undiagnosed cancer/hyperplasia in these patients.

Conclusions

The evidence we analysed suggests that performing ES in the outpatient setting may allow effective management of low-risk women with AUB in primary care without referral to a hospital. But the false negative rate, health economics and implications of such a change in practice are still unknown and more research is required.

Abbreviations

AUB: 

Abnormal uterine bleeding

D&C: 

Dilation and curettage

ES: 

Endometrial sampling

PMB: 

Postmenopausal bleeding

RCT: 

Randomised controlled trial

USS: 

Ultrasound scan

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Mary Connor and Dr. Mauro A Rinaldi for their valuable comments.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Authors’ contributions

JMD proposed the review and created the original search strategy. BD undertook the initial literature search and retrieved the manuscripts. BN revised the initial search, executed the final searches, compiled the results and undertook the quality assessments. BN and JMD wrote the manuscript, with contributions from BD, which all authors approved. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Clinical Research Fellow in Obstetrics & Gynaecology; Academic Unit of Reproductive and Developmental Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK
(2)
Academic Unit of Primary Medical Care, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK

References

  1. Munro M, Critchley H, Broder M, Fraser ID. ftFWGoM. FIGO classification system (FIGO-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113(1):3-13.Google Scholar
  2. Fraser I, Langham SU-HK. Health-related quality of life and economic burden of abnormal uterine bleeding. Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;4:179–89.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Shapley M, Jordan KCP. An epidemiological survey of symptoms of menstrual loss in the community. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54:359–63.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Garside R, Stein K, Wyatt K, Round APA. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microwave and thermal balloon endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2004;8ii:155.Google Scholar
  5. McCormick A, Fleming D, Charlton J, Royal College of General Practitioners GB S. OoPCa. Morbidity statistics from general practice: fourth national study. 1995.Google Scholar
  6. Royal college of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Heavy menstrual bleeding audit second annual report. 2012.Google Scholar
  7. Kai J, Middleton L, Daniels J, Pattison H, Tryposkiadis K, Gupta J, et al. Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(653):e861-e70. Epub 2016 Oct 10.Google Scholar
  8. Dickson J, Delaney B, Connor M. Primary care endometrial sampling for abnormal uterine bleeding: a pilot study. J Fam Plan Reprod Heal Care. 2017;43:247–8.Google Scholar
  9. Lethaby A, Cooke IRM. Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;19:CD002126.Google Scholar
  10. Weeks A, Duffy SWJ. A double-blind randomised trial of leuprorelin acetate prior to hysterectomy for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;107:323–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Maresh M, Metcalfe M, McPherson K, Overton C, Hall V, Hargreaves J, et al. The VALUE national hysterectomy study: description of the patients and their surgery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;109:302–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Pitkin J. Dysfunctional uterine bleeding. BMJ. 2007;334(7603):1110–1.Google Scholar
  13. Warner P, Critchey H, Lumsden M, Cambell-Brown M, Dougas AMG. Referral for menstrual problems: cross sectional survey of symptoms, reasons for referral and management. BMJ. 2001;323:24–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Farquhar CM, Kimble RMN. How do New Zealand Gynaecologists treat menorrhagia? Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;36:444–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.1996.tb02190.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Lumsden M, Gebbie AHC. Managing unscheduled bleeding in non-pregnant premenopausal women. BMJ. 2013;346. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3251.
  16. Bignardi T, Van den Bosch T, Condous G. Abnormal uterine and post-menopausal bleeding in the acute gynaecology unit. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;595-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.05.001.
  17. Cancer Research UK. Uterine Cancer incidence statistics: uterine cancer incidence trends over time 2014. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/uterine-cancer/incidence#ref-2. (accessed 19 Jan 2017).
  18. Wise MR, Gill P, Lensen S, Thompson JMD, Farquhar CM. Body mass index trumps age in decision for endometrial biopsy: cohort study of symptomatic premenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:598.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooper N, Barton P, Breijer M, Caffrey O, Opmeer B, Timmermans A, Cooper NA, Barton PM, Breijer M, Caffrey O, Opmeer BC. et al. Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for the management of abnormal uterine bleeding (heavy menstrual bleeding and post-menopausal bleeding): a decision analysis 2014;18. doi:https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18240.
  20. National Insititute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referra. 2015.Google Scholar
  21. Julian S, Naftalin N, Clark M, Szczepura A, Rashid A, Baker R, et al. An integrated care pathway for menorrhagia across the primary–secondary interface: patients’ experience, clinical outcomes, and service utilisation. BMJ Qual Saf. 2007;16(2):110–5.Google Scholar
  22. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Standards for Gynaecology. 2008.Google Scholar
  23. Rauf RSA, Sadia S, Waqar F, Zafar S, Sultana SWS. Outpatient endometrial biopsy with Pipelle vs diagnostic dilatation and curettage. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2004;26:145–8.Google Scholar
  24. Fakhar S, Saeed G, Khan AH, Alam AY. Validity of pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Ann Saudi Med. 2008;28:188–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Cooper JM, Erickson ML. Endometrial sampling techniques in the diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2000;27:235–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-8545(00)80018-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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;165:1287–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(91)90351-Q.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Koonings P, Moyer DL, Grimes DA. A randomised clinical trial comparing Pipelle and tis-u-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;75:293.Google Scholar
  28. Kaunitz AM, Masciello A, Ostrowski M, Rovira EZ. Comparison of endometrial biopsy with the endometrial Pipelle and Vabra aspirator. J Reprod Med. 1988;33:427–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Moberger B, Nilsson S, Palmstierna S, Redvall L, Sternby N. Amulticenter study comparing two endometrial sampling devices - Medscand Endorette TM and Pipelle De cornier R. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77:764–9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0412.1998.770712.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams ARW, Brechin S, Porter AJL, Warner P, Critchley HOD. Factors affecting adequacy of Pipelle and Tao brush endometrial sampling. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:1028–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01773.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 Reprod Biol. 1997;72:57–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(96)02658-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lipscomb GH, Lopatine SM, Stovall TG, Ling FW. A randomized comparison of the Pipelle, Accurette, and Explora endometrial sampling devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:591–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(94)70234-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain CCG. The question. In: Systematic Reviews in Health Care: a Practical Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 9.Google Scholar
  34. Cornier E. The Pipelle: a disposable device for endometrial biopsy. Am J Obs Gynecol. 1984;148:109–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training n.d. http://training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed 12 July 2017).
  36. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence: Summary. In: AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 1998-2005. 2002;47. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11930/.
  37. Macones G. How accurate if Pipelle sampling: a study by Huang et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196(3):280-1.Google Scholar
  38. McCluggage WG. My approach to the interpretation of endometrial biopsies and curettings. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59:801–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2005.029702.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Seamark CJ. Endometrial sampling in general practice. Br J Gen Pract [Internet]. 1998;48:434. Available from: http://bjgp.org/content/48/434/1597/tab-pdf.
  40. Henig I, Tredway DR, Maw GM, Gullett AJ, Cheatwood M, C P. Evaluation of the Pipelle curette for endometrial biopsy. J Reprod Med. 1989;34:786–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zorlu CG, Cobanoglu O, Işik AZ, Kutluay L, Kuşçu E. Accuracy of Pipelle endometrial sampling in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 1994;38:272–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Ferry J, Farnsworth A, Webster M, Wren B. The efficacy of the Pipelle endometrial biopsy in detecting endometrial carcinoma. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;33:76–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.1993.tb02060.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Sany O, Singh K, Jha S. Correlation between preoperative endometrial sampling and final endometrial cancer histology. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2012;33:142–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Huang GS, Gebb JS, Einstein MH, Shahabi S, Novetsky AP, Goldberg GL. Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling for the detection of high-grade endometrial tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:243.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.09.035.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Daud S, Jalil SSA, Griffin M, Ewies AAA. Endometrial hyperplasia – the dilemma of management remains: a retrospective observational study of 280 women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159:172–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.06.023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Liu H, Wang FL, Zhao YM, Yao YQ, Li YL. Comparison of Pipelle sampler with conventional dilatation and curettage (D&C) for Chinese endometrial biopsy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;35:508–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Gungorduk K, Asicioglu O, Ertas IE, Ozdemir LA, Ulker MM, Yildirim G, et al. Comparison of the histopathological diagnoses of preoperative dilatation and curettage and pipelle biopsy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2014;35:539–43. https://doi.org/10.12892/ejgot24972014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kazandi M, Okmen F, Ergenoglu AM, Yeniel AO, Zeybek B, Zekioglu O, et al. Comparison of the success of histopathological diagnosis with dilatation-curettage and Pipelle endometrial sampling. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32:790–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2012.719944.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Demirkiran F, Yavuz E, Erenel H, Bese T, Arvas M, Sanioglu C. Which is the best technique for endometrial sampling? Aspiration (pipelle) versus dilatation and curettage (D&C). Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:1277–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2438-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ben-Baruch G, Seidman DS, Schiff E, Moran O, Menczer J. Outpatient endometrial sampling with the Pipelle curette. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 1994;37:260–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Kavak Z, Ceyhan N, Pekin S. Combination of vaginal ultrasonography and pipelle sampling in the diagnosis of endometrial disease. Aust NZ Obs Gynaecol. 1996;36:63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Abdelazim IA, Elezz AA, Abdelkarim AF. Pipelle endometrial sampling versus conventional dilatation &amp; curettage in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Asian Pacific J Reprod. 2013;2:45–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2305-0500(13)60115-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Rezk M, Sayyed T, Dawood R. The effectiveness and acceptability of Pipelle endometrial sampling versus classical dilatation and curettage: a three-year observational study. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2016;81:537–42. https://doi.org/10.1159/000444711.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Eddowes HA, Read MD, Codling BW. Pipelle: a more acceptable technique for outpatient endometrial biopsy. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:961–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02458.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Naim NM, Ahmad S, Razi ZR, M ZA. The Vabra aspirator versus the Pipelle device for outpatient endometrial sampling. Aust N Z J Obs Gynaecol. 2007;47:132–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodriguez GC, Yaqub N, King ME. A comparison of the Pipelle device and the Vabra aspirator as measured by endometrial denudation in hysterectomy specimens: The Pipelle device samples significantly less of the endometrial surface than the Vabra aspirator. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:55–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(12)90884-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Critchley HOD, Warner P, Lee AJ, Brechin S, Guise J, Graham B. Evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding: comparison of three outpatient procedures within cohorts defined by age and menopausal status. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(34):8.Google Scholar
  58. Yang GC, Del Priore G, W LS. Factors influencing the detection of uterine cancer by suction curettage and endometrial brushing. J Reprod Med. 2003;47:1005–10.Google Scholar
  59. Del Priore G, Willliams R, Harbatkin CB, Wan LS, Mittal K, Yang GCH. Endometrial brush biopsy for the diagnosis of endometrial Cancer. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2001;56:548–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Yang GC, Wan LS. Endometrial biopsy using the Tao brush method. A study of 50 women in a general gynecologic practice. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:109–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Silver MM, Miles P, Rosa C. Comparison of Novak and Pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:828–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Leclair CM, Zia JK, Doom CM, Morgan TK, Edelman AB. Pain experienced using two different methods of endometrial biopsy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:636–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820ad45b.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Bhide A, Gangji A, Anyanwu L. Endometrial biopsy: A pilot study of instrument used; Pipelle vs infant feeding tube. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27:838–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610701718941.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Masood H, Ashraf S, Masood MS. Frequency of positive endometrial pipelle biopsies in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding for detection of endometrial carcinoma Pak J Med Health Sci. 2015;9:256–8. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c724/5b497b4f5771a8e4356db03be05fc8a0f760.pdf. Accessed Apr 2017.
  65. Piatek S, Panek G, Wielgoś M. Assessment of the usefulness of pipelle biopsy in gynecological diagnostics. Ginekol Pol. 2016;87:559–64. https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.2016.0044.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Machado F, Moreno J, Carazo M, León J, Fiol G, Serna R. Accuracy of endometrial biopsy with the cornier pipelle for diagnosis of endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24:279–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Guido RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Rulin MC, Christopherson WA. Pipelle endometrial sampling. Sensitivity in the detection of endometrial cancer. J Reprod Med. 1995;40:553–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sanam M, Majid M. Comparison the diagnostic value of dilatation and curettage versus endometrial biopsy by Pipelle--a clinical trial. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16:4971–5. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.12.4971.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Seto MTY, Ip PPC, Ngu S-F, Cheung ANY, Pun T-C. Positive predictive value of endometrial polyps in Pipelle aspiration sampling: a histopathological study of 195 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;203:12–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.04.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Polena V, Mergui J-L, Zerat L, Sananes S. The role of Pipelle® Mark II sampling in endometrial disease diagnosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;134:233–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.07.026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Shams, G. Comparison of Pipelle de Cornier with conventional dilatation and curettage in terms of patients’ acceptability. Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute ;Peshawar. 2012: 26 (4) [cited 2017 Jun 22]. Available from: http://www.jpmi.org.pk/index.php/jpmi/article/view/1377
  73. Trolice MP, Fishburne CJR, McGrady S. Anesthetic efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine for endometrial biopsy: a randomized double-masked trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:345–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Frishman G, Jacobs S. A randomized clinical trial comparing Pipelle and tis-U-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;76:315–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Gordon SJ, Westgate J. The incidence and Management of Failed Pipelle Sampling in a general outpatient clinic. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;39:115–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.1999.tb03460.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Brandner P, Neis KJ. Diagnosis of endometrial Cancer and its precursors. Contrib Gynecol Obstet. 2000;20:27–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Dantas MC, Hidalgo MM, Bahamondes L, Marchi NM. A comparison of the performance of endometrial biopsy with the Pipelle® by nurses and physicians. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1994;45:164–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(94)90128-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Youssif SN, McMillan DL. Outpatient endometrial biopsy: the pipelle. Br J Hosp Med. 1995;54(5):198–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D, Ameye L, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D. Ultrasound examination of the endometrium before and after Pipelle endometrial sampling. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:283–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.1967.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Dijkhuizen FPHLJ, Mol BWJ, Brölmann HAM, Heintz APM. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia. Cancer. 2000;89:1765–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20001015)89:8<1765::AID-CNCR17>3.0.CO;2-F.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Du J, Li Y, Lv S, Wang Q, Sun C, Dong X, et al. Endometrial sampling devices for early diagnosis of endometrial lesions. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142:2515–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-016-2215-3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Clark TJ, Mann CH, Shah N, Khan KS, Song F, Gupta JK. Accuracy of outpatient endometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:784–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Chambers JT, Chambers SK. Endometrial sampling: when? Where? Why? With what? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1992;35:28–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Kotdawala P, Kotdawala S, Nagar N. Evaluation of endometrium in peri-menopausal abnormal uterine bleeding. J Midlife Health. 2013;4:16–21. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-7800.109628.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  85. Tahir MM, Bigrigg MA, Browning JJ, Brookes T, Smith PA. A randomised controlled trial comparing transvaginal ultrasound, outpatient hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy with inpatient hysteroscopy and curettage. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:1259–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08179.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Ahonkallio SJ, Liakka AK, Martikainen HK, Santala MJ. Feasibility of endometrial assessment after thermal ablation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;147:69–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.06.014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement