Endocervical sampling by kevorkian curette or pipelle aspiration device: A randomized comparison

Oliveira, Michelle Menezes de; Farias‐Eisner, Robin; Pitkin, Roy M.

doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)91428-5

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies all support the Pipelle as an adequate and equal, if not preferable, sampling device, particularly regarding decreased patient-reported pain. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Little data exist comparing a relatively new device, the Explora curette (Milex) 7,13,14 with the Pipelle. 7 The Explora is slightly more rigid than the Pipelle and has a sharp, Randall-type cutting edge on one side of its distal end; it is 19.7-cm-long, with an outer diameter of 3.0 mm, and suction is created by pulling back on a locking syringe.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain Experienced Using Two Different Methods of Endometrial Biopsy

Leclair

Zia

Doom

et al. 2011

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain Experienced Using Two Different Methods of Endometrial Biopsy

Leclair

Zia

Doom

et al. 2011

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 2 One study suggested that sampling with a Pipelle device yields similar tissue volume with a similar proportion of adequate results with less pain compared with an endocervical curette. 4 Other devices have been developed for endocervical sampling but peer-reviewed evidence is sparse and seems insufficient for the development of firm guidelines for or against use. Most studies have focused on ECC, and for the purposes of this report, the term “ECC” is used to encompass all methods of endocervical sampling.…”

Section: Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2013, an ASCCP literature review through 2011 established that endocervical sampling with a curette is more specific and sampling with a brush is more sensitive, leading a national consensus conference to determine that both are acceptable techniques 2 . One study suggested that sampling with a Pipelle device yields similar tissue volume with a similar proportion of adequate results with less pain compared with an endocervical curette 4 . Other devices have been developed for endocervical sampling but peer-reviewed evidence is sparse and seems insufficient for the development of firm guidelines for or against use.…”

Section: Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Colposcopy Standards: Guidelines for Endocervical Curettage at Colposcopy

Massad

Perkins

Naresh

et al. 2022

J Low Genit Tract Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe most recent guidelines for colposcopy practice in the United States, the 2017 Colposcopy Standards Consensus Guidelines, did not include recommendations for endocervical curettage (ECC). This document provides updated guidelines for use of ECC among patients referred for colposcopy.MethodsConsensus guidelines for the use of ECC were developed in 2012. To update these guidelines in concordance with the 2017 Colposcopy Standards process, an expert workgroup was convened in 2021. Literature had been previously reviewed through 2011, before the 2012 guideline. Literature from the years 2012–2021 and data from the NCI Biopsy study were reviewed, focusing on the additional yield of ECC.ResultsEndocervical curettage is recommended for patients with high-grade cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18 infection, positive results on dual staining for p16/Ki67, for those previously treated for known or suspected cervical precancer or considering observation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, and when the squamocolumnar junction is not fully visualized at colposcopy. Endocervical curettage is preferred for all patients aged older than 40 years. Endocervical curettage is acceptable for all nonpregnant patients undergoing colposcopy but may be omitted when a subsequent excisional procedure is planned, the endocervical canal does not admit a sampling device, or in nulliparous patients aged younger than 30 years, with cytology reported as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion regardless of whether the squamocolumnar junction is fully visualized. Endocervical curettage is unacceptable in pregnancy.ConclusionsThese guidelines for ECC add to the 2017 consensus recommendations for colposcopy practice in the United States.

show abstract

“…One nonrandomized and 4 randomized trials were identified during a literature search that examined endocervical sampling technique rather than the usefulness of ECC per se (33)(34)(35)(36)(37). One of these studies compared the accuracy of endocervical specimen obtained with the endocervical brush or a Kevorkian curette after ECC at the time of colposcopy without looking at the potential benefit of either (37).…”

Section: Noncontributory Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%