Buscar en
Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología
Toda la web
Inicio Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología Comparación del cepillo endocervical y la torunda de algodón para la toma cito...
Información de la revista
Vol. 47. Núm. 11.
Páginas 499-505 (Enero 2004)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 47. Núm. 11.
Páginas 499-505 (Enero 2004)
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-5013(04)76043-4
Acceso a texto completo
Comparación del cepillo endocervical y la torunda de algodón para la toma citológica cervical
Comparison of endocervical brush and cotton swab for cervical cytologic sampling
Visitas
...
R. Morenoa,
Autor para correspondencia
rmoreno@hsll.es

Correspondencia: Cortecera, 16. 07006 Palma de Mallorca. España
, J. Cartanyab, J. Casalb, C. Serrab, V. Boneta
a Servicio de Obstetricia y Ginecología. Hospital Son Llàtzer. Palma de Mallorca
b Servicio de Obstetricia y Ginecología. Hospital Son Dureta. Palma de Mallorca. España
Información del artículo
Resumen
Objetivo

Comparación de la calidad y capacidad diagnóstica de las muestras citológicas según los criterios del sistema Bethesda 1988–1991 en función del uso del cepillo endocervical o la torunda de algodón.

Material y métodos

Estudio aleatorizado de 595 mujeres distribuidas en 2 grupos. Las citologías del grupo A (305 mujeres) se practicaron con torunda de algodón y espátula de madera y las del grupo B (290 mujeres) con cepillo endocervical y espátula de madera.

Resultados

No existieron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en las características clínicas o demográficas de las pacientes de ambos grupos. Los 2 instrumentos se revelaron igualmente eficaces para la detección de anomalías citológicas, la recolección de células endocervicales y la consecución de citologías satisfactorias.

Conclusión

No se impone un cambio en las maniobras tradicionales de realización de la citología. Los esfuerzos para mejorar la calidad de las muestras y la tasa de falsos negativos deben realizarse en otros aspectos.

Palabras clave:
Citología cervicovaginal
Displasia de cérvix
Cribado
Calidad
Neoplasia epitelial intracervical
Abstract
Objective

To compare the quality and diagnostic yield of cervical cytologic sampling according to the Bethesda System 1988–1991 based on the use of an endocervical brush or cotton swab.

Material and methods

We performed a randomized study of 595 women distributed in two groups. Cervical sampling was performed with a cotton swab and wooden spatula in group A (305 women) and with a cervical brush and wooden spatula in group B (290 women).

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical or demographic features of the two groups. No differences were found in the effectiveness of the two sampling methods in detecting cytological alterations or collection of endocervical cells. Satisfactory smears for interpretation were obtained using both methods.

Conclusion

No change in the traditional method of cervical sampling is required. Attempts to improve the quality and false-negative rate of samples should focus on other features.

Keywords:
Cervical smears
Cervix dysplasia
Screening
Quality assurance
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
T. Bjorge, S.D. Torensen, G.B. Skare.
Incidence, survival and mortality in cervical cancer in Norway 1956–90.
Eur J Cancer, 16 (1993), pp. 2291-2297
[2.]
P. Martin-Hirsch, G. Jarvis, H. Kitchener, R. Lilford.
Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples (Cochrane Review).
Cochrane Library, Issue 4,
[3.]
D. Salomon, D. Davey, R. Kurman, A. Moriarty, D. O’Connor, M. Prey, et al.
The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology.
Jama, 287 (2002), pp. 2114-2119
[4.]
E. Cabeza, R. Ocaña-Riola, I. Garau, C. Campillo, P. Franch, A. Obrador.
Distribución geográfica del cáncer de cérvix en Mallorca. IX Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Salud Pública, SESPAS. Zaragoza, noviembre 2001.
Gac Sanit, 15 (2001), pp. 33
[5.]
Enquesta de Salut de les Illes Balears.
[6.]
National Cancer Institute.
The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses, developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 12-13 1988.
Acta Cytol, 33 (1989), pp. 567-574
[7.]
R. Rammou-Kinia, I. Anagnostopoulu, M. Gomousa.
Comparison of spatula and nonspatula methods for cervical sampling.
Acta Cytol, 35 (1991), pp. 69-75
[8.]
US Preventive services Task Force.
Screening for cervical cancer.
In guide to clinical preventive services, 2nd, pp. 105-117
[9.]
M.F. Paraiso, K. Brady, R. Helchmen, T.W. Roat.
Evaluation of the endocervical Cytobrush and Cervex-Brush in pregnant women.
Obstet Gynecol, 84 (1994), pp. 539-543
[10.]
Y. Van der Graaf, G.P. Vooijs, H.L.J. Gaillard, D.M. Go.
Screening errors in cervical cytologic screening.
Acta Cytol, 31 (1987), pp. 434-438
[11.]
M.E. Sherman, M. Weinstein, M. Sughayer, J.O. Cappellari, J.R. Orr, Y.S. Erosan.
The Bethesda System. Impact on reporting cervicovaginal specimens and reproducibility of criteria for assessing endocervical sampling.
Acta Cytol, 37 (1993), pp. 55-60
[12.]
P.P. Koonings, K. Dickinson, G. D’Ablaing III, J.B. Schlaerth.
A randomized clinical trial comparing the cytobrush and cotton swab for papanicolau smears.
Obstet Gynecol, 80 (1992), pp. 241-245
[13.]
J. Austoker.
Screening for cervical cancer.
Bmj, 309 (1994), pp. 241-248
[14.]
P.T. Taylor, W.A. Anderson, S.R. Barber, J.L. Covell, P.B. Underwood Jr..
The screening Papanicolu smear: contribution of the endocervical brush.
Obstet Gynecol, 70 (1987), pp. 734-738
[15.]
M.L. Nielsen, D.D. Davey, T.S. Kline.
Specimen adecuacy evaluation in gynecologic cytopathology: current laboratory practice in the College of American Pathologist interlaboratory comparison program and tentative guidelines for future practice.
Diagn Cytopathol, 9 (1993), pp. 394-403
[16.]
P.G. Vooijs, A. Elias, Y. Van der Graaf, M. Poelen-van der Berg.
The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears.
Acta Cytol, 30 (1986), pp. 251-257
[17.]
P.R. Brosso, G. Buffetti, T. Fabrinni, P. Francone, R. Orlassino.
The unicum and cytobrush plus spatula for cervical cytologic sampling: a comparison.
Acta Cytol, 40 (1996), pp. 222-225
[18.]
M.L. Noel.
Papanicolau smear adecuacy: the cervical cytobrush and Ayre spatula compared with the extended-tip spatula.
J Am Board Fam Pract, 39 (1989), pp. 109
[19.]
Z.N. Kavak, F. Eren, S. Pekin, S. Küllü.
A ramdomized comparison of 3 Papanicolau smear collection methods.
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol, 35 (1995), pp. 446-449
[20.]
P. Dey, S. Collins, M. Desai, C. Woodman.
Adecuacy of cervical cytology sampling with the cervex brush and the Aylesbury spatula: a population based ramdomised controlled trial.
Bmj, 313 (1996), pp. 721-723
[21.]
B.J. Bauman.
Use of a cervical brush for Papanicolau smear collection. A meta-analysis.
J Nurse Midwifery, 38 (1993), pp. 267-275
[22.]
F. Buntinx, M. Brouwers.
Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of ramdomised and quasi-ramdomised studies.
Bmj, 313 (1996), pp. 1285-1290
[23.]
F. Buntinx, H.J.A. Schouten, J.A. Knottnerus, H.F. Crebolder, G.G.M. Essed.
Interobserver variation in the assessment of the sampling quality of cervical smears.
J Clinic Epidemiol, 46 (1993), pp. 367-370
[24.]
S.E. Spires, E.R. Banks, J.A. Weeks, H.W. Banks, D.D. Davey.
Assessment of cervicovaginal smear adecuacy. The Bethesda System guidelines and reproducibility.
Am J Clin Pathol, 102 (1994), pp. 354-359
Copyright © 2004. Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '||' (T_BOOLEAN_OR) in /var/www/html/elsevier2/modulos/pie/capas-full.php on line 3