Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Abstracts - RGCON 2016
02 (
Suppl 1
); S97-S97
doi:
10.1055/s-0039-1685286

Cervix: Poster Abstract: Comparison of Keyes punch biopsy instrument with cervical punch biopsy forceps for diagnosing cervical lesions

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, UCMS and GTB Hospital, New Delhi, India
Department of Pathology, UCMS and GTB Hospital, New Delhi, India
Licence
This open access article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Abstract

Aims:

To assess the feasibility and efficacy of Keyes punch biopsy instrument (KP) in diagnosing cervical lesions and compare it with cervical punch biopsy forceps (CP).

Methods:

75 women having adequate colposcopy with abnormal transformation zone were included and paired colposcopic directed biopsies were taken using KP followed by CP from the same target area. The outcome parameters were compared using paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed rank test and McNemar test.

Results:

It was feasible in all cases to take cervical biopsy with KP and CP. Volume of gross specimen obtained by KP was less than CP (0.076±0.097 vs 0.101±0.156 cm3, p=0.061), however on microscopic examination, mean length and depth of tissue in KP was greater than CP by 0.06 mm (p=0.810) and 0.14 mm (p=0.634) respectively. There was an exact agreement with final surgical specimen in 42% of cases in both forceps. Agreement within 1 degree was found in 25% of cases with KP and in 17% of cases with CP. Both the forceps equally missed microinvasive lesions but KP was inferior to CP for invasive cancer.

Conclusion:

KP is almost at par with CP for diagnosing preinvasive cervical lesions and is a useful adjunct to the existing armamentarium of biopsy forceps.


Fulltext Views
105

PDF downloads
46
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections