No abstract

Background: Endometrial aspiration biopsy is one of the primary steps in diagnostic evaluation of a women presenting with suspected endometrial pathology. The aim of present study was to compare specimen adequacy, ease of doing the procedure, patient comfort and cost effectiveness in office endometrial sampling by endosampler vs Karman cannula number 4.Methods: This was a prospective comparative study where 102 patients were included. In 50% of patients, endosampler was used and Karman cannula was used in the rest. All procedures were noted, analysed and done in outpatient department and various parameters like specimen adequacy, pain score, ease of doing the procedure were analysed and compared in both groups.Results: The mean age of the patients was 37.1(±10) years with comparable distribution in the two groups. The parity was comparable in both groups. Authors further analysed the data on the basis of operator experience. The mean score of ease of insertion based on the experience of residents of < 2 years and > 2 years was 3.1±1.48; 4.0±1.96 and 3.5±1.5; 3.7±2 in endosampler and Karman cannula group respectively. This difference was significant in the endosampler group (P: <0.001). The difference in pain score in two groups was not significant.  The specimen obtained was adequate in 32 (62.7 %) patients of the endosampler group and in 39 (76.4 %) patients of the Karman cannula group. (p-0.07). Endosampler is five times costlier than Karman cannula.Conclusions: Karman cannula is a good and cost-effective sampling device for endometrial biopsy.

Context: The biopsy of cervix can be obtained by various methods with availability of newer modalities like loop electrode. Objectives: To compare the histo-pathological parameters and clinical outcome of cervical biopsy obtained using punch biopsy forceps versus loop electrode. Methods: Women attending OPD were screened for cervical pathology, and colposcopy was done for those who screened positive.  Patients who required cervical biopsy after colposcopy were allocated into 2 group; one undergoing LEEP biopsy and other half biopsied with Punch forceps. During procedure patients were evaluated for the intra–op pain and bleeding and their severity. The histo- pathological diagnosis was carried out and the sample was studied for its size, adequacy, and presence of any thermal or crush artefacts. Result: The two methods of biopsy were comparable in intra-op parameters, except for the increased requirement for additional haemostasis in LEEP biopsy. There was no case of bleeding from biopsy site at the follow-up visit. LEEP biopsy was  associated with continued vaginal discharge more often than punch biopsy. An adequate sample for histopathological diagnosis was obtained in 91.25% of all cases.  The comparative findings were reflective of comparable efficacy of both methods in providing an acceptable tissue sample for diagnosis. Conclusion: After analysing and comparing the aforementioned parameters, we opined that neither method can be deemed clearly superior to the other as a cervical biopsy procedure.Keywords: Punch biopsy forceps; Loop electrode; Cervical biopsy.