Aquino Carmen Imma, Surico Daniela, Miglino Francesca, Ligori Arianna, Ferrante Daniela, Remorgida Valentino
Department of Translational Medicine, University of Piemonte Orientale, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 'Maggiore della Carità' Hospital, 28100 Novara, Italy.
Medical Statistics, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Piemonte Orientale, 28100 Novara, Italy.
Biomedicines. 2025 May 4;13(5):1113. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines13051113.
The role of blind endometrial sampling, in the era of hysteroscopy-guided biopsy, can be only considered as a screening tool or a first-line approach if a hysteroscopy cannot be performed for whatever reason. Several devices are available, with Perma (a sharp-edged spatula sliding inside a flexible cannula) being one of them. : The aims of this study were to compare the concordance of blind to visual endometrial sampling, and the influence of operators' experience on the results. : Women undergoing hysteroscopy were invited to undergo a Perma biopsy as well. If accepted, a Perma sampling was performed before the hysteroscopy and only if there was no cervical dilatation (as an office setting). The operator was randomly chosen between expert (two staff members) and non-expert (two residents) operators. All cases were collected at the AOU Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy. Categorical variables were presented in number and percentage (%) and continuous variables were presented as mean ± SD. The association between categorical variables was evaluated using Fisher's exact test. Clinical outcomes were analyzed, and the results were first compared within the same patient and subsequent within the doctors' group (inter- and intra-variation) in terms of Cohen's Kappa. : 82 women performed both hysteroscopy and Perma. A sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 100% was found when Perma was compared to hysteroscopy (the gold standard). The comparison between valid vs. invalid samples in terms of sufficient evaluable tissue was not significant ( = 0.583). There are no statistical associations with body mass index, parity, or previous intrauterine surgery related to the outcomes of hysteroscopy and Perma. Cohen's Kappa between non-experts was 0.43 (moderate), between experts was 0.30 (fair), with the highest concordance being between one non- and one expert (0.68 = substantial). Perma represents a pragmatic diagnostic tool, which could also be used in outpatient.
在宫腔镜引导活检的时代,盲刮子宫内膜的作用,只有在因任何原因无法进行宫腔镜检查时,才可以被视为一种筛查工具或一线方法。有几种设备可供使用,Perma(一种在柔性套管内滑动的边缘锋利的刮匙)就是其中之一。本研究的目的是比较盲刮与直视下子宫内膜取样的一致性,以及操作者经验对结果的影响。接受宫腔镜检查的女性也被邀请进行Perma活检。如果同意,在宫腔镜检查前进行Perma取样,且仅在未进行宫颈扩张(如门诊环境)时进行。操作者在专家(两名工作人员)和非专家(两名住院医生)之间随机选择。所有病例均在意大利诺瓦拉的AOU Maggiore della Carità收集。分类变量以数量和百分比(%)表示,连续变量以均值±标准差表示。使用Fisher精确检验评估分类变量之间的关联。分析临床结果,首先在同一患者内比较结果,随后在医生组内(组间和组内差异)根据Cohen's Kappa进行比较。82名女性同时进行了宫腔镜检查和Perma活检。将Perma与宫腔镜检查(金标准)相比时,发现敏感性为81.8%,特异性为100%。在可评估组织充足方面,有效样本与无效样本之间的比较无显著差异(P = 0.583)。宫腔镜检查和Perma活检的结果与体重指数、产次或既往子宫内手术无关。非专家之间的Cohen's Kappa为0.43(中等),专家之间为0.30(一般),最高一致性出现在一名非专家和一名专家之间(0.68 = 高度一致)。Perma是一种实用的诊断工具,也可用于门诊患者。