Endocervical sampling using brush versus curette: a single centre experience and literature review.

Endocervical sampling is performed traditionally with an endocervical curette (ECC). The current study objective is to compare the histopathological performance of endocervical brush (ECB) and endocervical curette (ECC). A retrospective review was performed including patients included that underwent colposcopy with endocervical sampling using either method. A total of 127 samples were obtained with ECC and 98 with ECB. Histopathological diagnosis was obtained in 124 (97.6%) ECC samples and in 94 (95.9%) ECB samples (p = 0.46). The incidence of benign results was similar between ECC and ECB (117 (92.1%) versus 88 (89.8%) respectively (p = 0.28)). When combining information from endocervical sampling with cervical biopsies, the detection rate of high-grade pathologies was similar between the groups with 14 cases (17.7%) for ECC and 8 cases (17.0%) for ECB (p = 0.43). A scope review of the topic was performed, illustrating that studies favour either method. In conclusion, ECB and ECC perform similarly for providing a histopathological diagnosis on endocervical samples. What is already known on this subject? Endocervical samples in colposcopy were traditionally obtained using an endocervical curette. Similarly, a brush can be used for histological sampling of the endocervical canal. However, it is unclear how the ability to obtain a histopathological diagnosis compares between the two techniques. What do the results of this study add? This single-institution experience with using endocervical brush and curette for endocervical sampling finds that both methods are acceptable and have a high ability to provide a histopathological diagnosis. Precisely, 4.1% of brush and 2.4% of curette samples had insufficient tissue. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and further research? The endocervical brush is an adequate sampling method for colposcopy, and can be safely used instead of the curette, based on clinician preference. Further studies could investigate how these methods compare from a patient perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]