You could be reading the full-text of this article now if you...

If you have access to this article through your institution,
you can view this article in

Endocervical Sampling: A Comparison of Endocervical Brush, Endocervical Curette, and Combined Brush with Curette Techniques

Gibson, Cheryl A. MD*; Trask, Carol E. MD; House, Patricia MPH, PhD; Smith, Susan F. MD*; Foley, Marion FNP*; Nicholas, Cate MS, PA§

Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease:
Original Articles
Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to compare the collection of endocervical specimens by endocervical brush, curette, and a combined curette and brush technique.

Methods: Women underwent colposcopy with endocervical curettage using one of 3 collection methods.

Results: The endocervical brush produced equivalent amounts of tissue and endocervical cells compared to the curette alone or combined techniques. More squamous and glandular atypia and SIL/AIS were found when a brush was used, but a statistically significant difference was not noted. The brush alone produced a significantly greater percentage of samples that were insufficient for diagnosis and more specimens without stromal components. The brush with the curette as a combined technique provided no improvement in amounts of tissue, endocervical cells/clusters, or amount of stroma retrieved.

Conclusion: Each technique has advantages and disadvantages in terms of what types of components are collected and what diagnosis may be determined from the sample taken.

Author Information

*Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (in conjunction with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England)

Department of Pathology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT

Office of Vermont Health Access, State of Vermont, Waterbury, VT

§Vermont Women's Health Center, Burlington, VT

Reprint requests to: Cheryl A. Gibson, MD, 23 Mansfield Avenue, Burlington, VT 05401.

©2001The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology