Ojeda OJ, Muñoz MR, Pardo LM, Guevara CM, Hernández QT, Valencia EC, Hernández VM

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 381-385
PDF size: 184.94 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: In cervical cytology taking there has been used several devices (swab, spatula, paintbrushes, and brushes) to reduce false negative results and the necessity to exfoliate more epithelial cells from squamous columnar joint and endocervix.
Objective: To compare the quality of cervical cytology taken with Cervex-brush and with Cervex-mex, utilizing the system of Bethesda.
Material and method: Transversal and comparative study, carried out during a period of two years, that included women from 15 to 85 years old which responded spontaneously to Papanicolaou screening as part of the permanent program of opportune diagnosis of cervical-uterine cancer. Two groups of study were formed with patients assigned in random form, in group 1 was taken cervical cytology with Cervex-brush and in group 2 with Cervex-mex; all samples were manipulated under habitual procedure and cytology were read by hospital’s pathologist in blinded form.
Results: There were included 1 658 patients, sample was taken with Cervex-brush in 821, and with Cervex-mex in 837. Thirty-four percent of patients have its first cervical cytology ever. Good quality cytology samples frequency was obtained with Cervex-brush in 48.5%, and with Cervex-mex in 50.4%, with statistical difference (p ‹ 0.05).
Conclusions: Cervex-mex design permits a better taking of endocervical cells, what reduces the number of inadequate cytologies and increases the possibility of detecting endocervical alterations.

REFERENCES

1. Papanicolaou GN. The diagnostic value of vaginal smear in carcinoma of the uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1941;42;193-205.

2. Parham GP. Comparison of cell collection and direct visualization of cervical cancer screening adjuncts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:13-20.

3. Lazcano PEC, Alonso RP, López CL, Hernández AM. Cáncer de cuello uterino. Una perspectiva histórica. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1994;62:40-47.

4. Martin-Hirsch. Efficacy of cervical smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 1999;354:1763-70.

5. Yeoh GP, Chan KW. The accuracy of Papanicolaou smear predictions: cytohistological correlation of 283 cases. HK Med J 1997;3:373-6.

6. Marchand L. Optimal collection technique and devices for a quality pap smear. WMJ 2005;104:51-55.

7. Sparrow MJ, Fauck R, Gupta RK. A trial of two methods of taking cervical smears: the Aylesbury spatula plus cytology brush compared to the Cervex broom. NZ Med J 1997;110:356-8.

8. Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Guralnick M, Shatz R. Cervical cytology with the Papette sampler. J Reprod Med 1994;39:304-10.

9. Lo L, Jordan J. Comparative yields of endocervical and metaplastic cells. Two sampling techniques: wooden spatula and cytology brush. Can Fam Physician 1995;41:1497-502.

10. Fokke HE, Salvatore CM, Schipper ME, Bleker OP. A randomized trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;48:103-6.

11. Szarewki A. Cervical smears following laser treatment. Comparison of Cervex brush versus Cytobrush-Ayre spatula sampling. Acta Cytol 1991;35:76-78.

12. Altermatt HJ. Cervix cytology: Cervex Brush versus conventional cotton swab. S R Med Prax 1997;86:1029-33.

13. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, et al, Forum Group Members; Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;24:287-91.

14. Valenzuela P, Martinez P, Santana A, Garrido N, et al. Comparison of cervical smears secured with different instruments. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001;80:262-66.