Article Text
Abstract
Introduction After an abnormal cervical screening test, colposcopy and possibly cervical biopsy are taken. Histopathology of the biopsies taken helps to confirm the presence or absence of cervical preinvasive disease
Methods In this study, 269 women who screened positive for oncogenic Human Papillomavirus (HPV) were invited for colposcopy using the Iris Liger device. Women with acetowhitening of the cervix after the application of 5% acetic acid had ectocervical biopsies taken while women with inadequate colposcopy had endocervical curettage (ECC). Two biopsy-taking devices; a standard Tichler (3mm) and an Endocervical curette were compared with soft brush for both ectocervical and endocervical biopsies respectively.
Results There were 4 CIN 3, three detected by the Tischler while 1 was by the soft brush; 9 CIN2 7 detected by Tischler and 2 by the Soft brush and 14 CIN1, 9 detected by Tischler and 5 by Soft brush. The number of insufficient samples was 5 and all from the soft brush samples. The Tischler forceps were better at detecting high-grade lesions p< 0.000. In the ECC, there were 35 insufficient samples, 24 by soft brush, 7 by endocervical curette and 4 when both were used, 6 CIN 1 were diagnosed, 3 by soft brush, 2 by curette and 1 by both instruments. One CIN 3 was diagnosed and it was by the curette. There was no significant difference between the two devices for ECC, p=.429.
Conclusion/Implications The Tichler is better at diagnosing ectocervical abnormality compared with the soft brush.