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: Prospective comparative cytologic study of direct peritoneal smears and lavage fluids in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and benign gynecologic disease.
    Author: Luesley DM, Williams DR, Ward K, Redman CR, Lawton FG.
    Journal: Acta Cytol; 1990; 34(4):539-44. PubMed ID: 2375222.
    Abstract:
    Direct peritoneal samples obtained by scraping or brushing (with a Cytobrush) were compared to peritoneal lavages (washings) for the cytologic evaluation of patients with gynecologic disease. The direct samples were obtained during laparotomy or laparoscopy, following saline lavage if that was performed, and were immediately smeared on glass slides and fixed in 95% alcohol. Only 9 of the direct peritoneal samples taken from 64 patients with benign gynecologic disease were unsatisfactory for cytologic interpretation while 19 of the 33 lavage specimens simultaneously collected from these patients were considered unsuitable for analysis (P less than .001). Two direct smears from cases with benign histology were reported as suspicious. Nineteen patients with epithelial ovarian cancer also had cytologic specimens collected by direct sampling and by washing. The direct smears were positive for malignancy in 12 cases, suspicious in 4 cases and negative in 3 cases while the lavage samples were positive in 9 cases, suspicious in 4 cases, negative in 4 cases and unsatisfactory in 2 cases. These results indicate that direct peritoneal sampling is a simple and reliable alternative to peritoneal lavage and produces a significantly lower incidence of unsatisfactory specimens.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]