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: [Comparison of the ThinPrep monolayer technique and conventional cervical Pap smears in a high-risk population using the Munich II nomenclature].
    Author: Lellé RJ, Cordes A, Regidor M, Maier E, Flenker H.
    Journal: Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch; 2007; 47(2):81-7. PubMed ID: 17440269.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: In this prospective study using the Munich II nomenclature for cervical cytology. Pap smear results obtained by the ThinPrep monolayer technique and those obtained by the conventional method were compared. METHODS: Pap smears were obtained from 1,000 women using an Ayre spatula/endocervical brush combination. Following transfer of the cell sample onto a slide, the same collection devices were rinsed in a liquid medium and processed using ThinPrep-2000 processor (split-sample technique). RESULTS: Specimen inadequacies due to drying artefacts, cell overlap or low number of epithelial cells were rare with both methods without any significant differences. However, ThinPrep slides were significantly less often compromised by red or white blood cells or by cytolysis. In contrast, endocervical cells were missing in 11.6% of slides compared to only 2.3% in conventional Pap smears. ThinPrep yielded results of unknown significance (Pap III) significantly less often (4.2 vs 6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: ThinPrep slides are less frequently compromised by blood components or cytolysis. Inconclusive results of Pap III are slightly less frequent when using ThinPrep. However, there is a significant percentage of slides lacking the endocervical component. Using a combination of spatula and cytobrush, this may not necessarily be due to non-representative cell sampling.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]