These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prehysterectomy curettage.
    Author: Stock RJ, Kanbour A.
    Journal: Obstet Gynecol; 1975 May; 45(5):537-41. PubMed ID: 1124168.
    Abstract:
    The efficacy of prehysterectomy curettage in ruling out an endometrial cancer was evaluated in three ways. First, by an evaluation of the extent of routine prehysterectomy curettage; second, by the assessment of the clinicians' ability to recognize endometrial cancer on the basis of curettings; and third, by evaluating the presence of a gross endometrial lesion in those uteri removed without a preoperative diagnosis of an endometrial malignancy. It was concluded that the examination of the opened excised uterus was more valuable than prehysterectomy curettage for the operative diagnosis of an endometrial malignancy. The efficacy of prehysterectomy curettage in screening for endometrial cancer was evaluated by 1) assessing the extent of prehysterectomy curettage in 50 postoperative uterine specimens, 2) a review of clinical records to assess recognition of cancer from curettage and 3) analysis of opened uteri removed without preoperative diagnosis for the presence of gross endometrial lesion. The routine prehysterectomy curettage was found to be incomplete in 60% of the cases. In evaluating the clinical recognition of curetted malignant material, a failure to suspect malignant tissue was found in 45% of the cases. In the open uterine specimens for which there was no preoperative diagnosis, gross lesions were found in 74.5%. It would appear, therefore, that gross examination of the excised uterus would be a more accurate way of gross screening for possible endometrial malignancy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]