Endometrial sampling: a comparison between the Pipelle® endometrial sampler and the Endosampler®

Authors

  • Robbert Soeters University of Cape Town
  • Judith Whittaker Pathcare Laboratories
  • Katrien Dehaeck Vincent Pallotti Hospital

Keywords:

Endometrial sampling, Pipelle endometrial sampler, Endosampler

Abstract

Objective: To compare the adequacy of endometrial sampling by the Endosampler® and the Pipelle®. Methods: A total of 68 women were randomly assigned to submit to pre-hysterectomy endometrial sampling, either by the Endosampler® or the Pipelle®. The amount of endometrial tissue sampled was measured by calculating the percentage endometrium sampled by each of the two devices. Acceptance by the gynaecologist was measured on a linear scale. Results: The Endosampler® sampled signficantly more endometrial tissue than the Pipelle® endometrial sampler (p-value = 0.03). Acceptance of the Endosampler® was better than that of the Pipelle® (p-value = 0.0005). With the use of the Pipelle®, three significant endometrial lesions were missed, including endometrial carcinoma in one instance. Conclusion: The Endosampler® appears to be an easy-to-use device for endometrial sampling, with reliable diagnostic yield.

Author Biographies

  • Robbert Soeters, University of Cape Town

    Head Gynaecological Oncology Unit

    Groote Schuur Hospital

     

  • Judith Whittaker, Pathcare Laboratories
    Pathcare laboratories

    Claremont

    Cape Town

    South Africa

  • Katrien Dehaeck, Vincent Pallotti Hospital

    Vincent Pallotti Hospital

    7405, Pinelands

    South Africa

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2011-03-15

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2011)

Section

Original Research

License

South African Journal of Gynaecological Oncology (SAJGO) Copyright is held by South African Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (SASGO). Copyright of the articles is held by the authors. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial Works 4.0 South Africa License (CC BY NC). Material submitted for publication in the SAJGO is accepted provided it has not been published elsewhere. The SAJGO does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do no purport to reflect the opinions or views of SASGO or its members.