Blind aspiration biopsy versus a guided hysteroscopic technique for investigation of the endometrium in infertile women
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
2
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2016
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
F HERNANDEZ
Autores
SIMOES, Manuel de Jesus
Citação
HISTOLOGY AND HISTOPATHOLOGY, v.31, n.9, p.981-986, 2016
Resumo
Embryo implantation failure and recurrent abortion are common indications for endometrial evaluation to determine the implantation window and diagnose endometrial anomalies. There are few research studies comparing the efficacy of different techniques used for endometrial sampling in infertile females during the luteal phase. Likewise, morphometric studies of the endometrium through aspiration biopsy are scant. A cross-sectional study of 30 infertile and 10 fertile females was carried out. The study participants underwent hysteroscopic and aspiration biopsies (pipelle) at the midluteal phase. Computer-assisted morphometric and pathological anatomy analyses were conducted independently by two pathologists blinded to the study. The two endometrial sampling biopsy techniques were compared through morphometric and pathological anatomy analyses using three parameters: a) the amount of material collected for the endometrial studies; b) the scope and origin of sampled materials; and c) the quality of the sample. Both biopsy techniques produced sufficient material for analysis. The directed biopsies yielded higher quality samples from targeted segments of the uterine cavity because samples were homogeneous and had no architectural distortion (p<0.05). Blood was present only in the samples obtained through a Pipelle. Endometritis was detected in 10% of the infertile women. Our findings suggest that hysteroscopic biopsies are superior to blinded aspiration biopsies.
Palavras-chave
Piepelle biopsy, Hysteroscopic biopsy, Endometrium, Infertily
Referências
- Bettocchi S, 2002, J AM ASSOC GYN LAP, V9, P290, DOI 10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60406-9
- Ceci O, 2002, FERTIL STERIL, V78, P628, DOI 10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03246-6
- Chan C, 2013, FERTIL STERIL, V100, P810, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.047
- Edi-Osagie E. C., 2004, FERTIL STERIL, V5, P1379
- Farrell T, 1999, ACTA OBSTET GYN SCAN, V78, P810, DOI 10.1034/j.1600-0412.1999.780914.x
- Galgani M, 2015, FERTIL STERIL, V103, P1579, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.014
- Garrido-Gomez T, 2014, HUM REPROD, V29, P1957, DOI 10.1093/humrep/deu171
- Goncharenko Vadym M, 2013, EPMA J, V4, P24, DOI 10.1186/1878-5085-4-24
- Johnston-MacAnanny EB, 2010, FERTIL STERIL, V93, P437, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.131
- Kasius JC, 2011, FERTIL STERIL, V96, P1451, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.039
- Kitiyodom Siraya, 2015, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, V98, P523
- Liu H., 2014, OBSTET GYNECOL, V31, P1
- McGovern PG, 2004, FERTIL STERIL, V82, P1273, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.03.070
- Metzger U, 2004, GYNECOL OBSTET INVES, V58, P26, DOI 10.1159/000077393
- Noyes R W, 1975, Am J Obstet Gynecol, V122, P262
- Panzan MQ, 2013, EUR J OBSTET GYN R B, V167, P47, DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.10.021
- Polena V, 2007, EUR J OBSTET GYN R B, V134, P233, DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.07.026
- Polisseni F, 2003, GYNECOL OBSTET INVES, V55, P205, DOI 10.1159/000072075
- Revel A, 2012, FERTIL STERIL, V97, P1028, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.039
- Lopes IMRS, 2014, REPROD SCI, V21, P930, DOI 10.1177/1933719113519169
- Rock J, 1937, J AMER MED ASSOC, V108, P2022
- Sabry D, 2014, J Adv Res, V5, P595, DOI 10.1016/j.jare.2013.08.003
- SHOUPE D, 1989, OBSTET GYNECOL, V73, P88
- Vilos GA, 2015, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V22, P704, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.02.017
- Williams ARW, 2008, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V115, P1028, DOI 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01773.x