Comparison of Fractional D&C with uterine Pathology in Determining the Causes of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding in women of Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Stage

Document Type : Original Article



Introduction: Abnormal uterine bleeding in pre and post menopausal period may be
caused by of benign or malignant causes in endometrium or endocervix that need
careful investigations by multiple diagnostic methods such as dilatation and curettage,
diagnostic hysterectomy, endometrial biopsy and tran’s vaginal biopsy.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of fractional D&C in
assessment of abnormal uterine bleeding.
Methods and Materials: In this descriptive study 156 women between 35 to 70
years old were admitted because of abnormal uterine bleeding after ruling out
pregnancy, hormonal disorder and coagulation disorders. The study was done in 2002
and patients underwent fractional D&C and then hysterectomy because of histological
findings or persistence of symptoms. The results were compared with histological
findings of the hysterectomy specimen (gold standard) and were evaluated for
sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of these methods.
Results: In all focal and diffuse uterine disease fractional D&C was 29.5% sensitive
and 88.2% specific and its positive predictive value was 76.5% and its negative
predictive value was 49.2%.
In endometrial pathologies ( such as hyperplasia and …) its sensitivity was 68.4% and
its specificity was 98.3% and positive and negative predictive value were 92.9% and
90.6% respectively. 100% of lyomyoma and adenomyosis cases, 66.6% of
endometrial polyp cases and 2.5% of different endometrial hyperplasia cases were
miss-diagnosed in fractional D&C.
Conclusion: Fractional D&C is not a reliable method for diagnosis of focal uterine
diseases such as myoma or adenomyosis and also endometrial polyps but it is useful
in the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia. Based on to the costs of fractional D& C
compared with other diagnostic methods and its pathologic results, routine use of this
method in evaluation of AUB is not recommended. 


1. Berek JS. Novak’s gynecology. 13th ed, Lippincott:Williams &Wilkins;2002:315-
2. Telinde Rw,Rock JA.Telindes operative gynecolegy. 19th ed. 2003:415-45,453-75.
3. 3. leon S , Robert H, Nathan G. Clinical gynecology endocrinology & infertility. 6th
Ed, 1999: 15:427-40.
4. Ben-Yehuda OM, Kim YB, Leuchter RS. Does hystroscopy improve upon the sensitivity
of dilatation and curettage in the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma?
Gynecol Oncol. 1998 Jan;68(1):4-7.
5. Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Vicino M, Marello F, Impedovo L, Selvaggi L. Diagnostic
inadequancy of dilatation and curettage. Fertil Steril. 2001 Apr;75(4):803-5.
6. Epstein E, Ramirez A, Skoog L. Dilatation and curettage fails to detect most focal lesions
in the uterine cavity in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol
Scand. 2001 Dec;80(12):1131-6.
7. Feledman S, Berkowitz RS, Tosteson AN. Cost-effectiveness of strategies to evaluate
postmenopausal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 1993 Jun;81(16):968-75.
8. Kochli OR, Schar GN, Begka M, Pok Lundquist J, Nussbaumer R, Keller PJ, et al.
Analysis of indications and results of fractional curettage in a large gynecological cohort.
Schweiz Med Wochenscher 1996 Jan 20;126(3):69-76.
9. Slaveikov S, Tomov S. Dilatation and curettage in women with abnormal uterine
bleeding--an analysis of the histopathological findings. Akush Ginkol (Sofiia). 1998;
37(1): 32-4.
10. 10. Wang W, Guo Y. Value of hystroscopy and dilatation and curettage in diagnosis of
endometrial carcinoma. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2002 Sep; 37(9):550-2.
11. Deckardt R, Lueken RP, Gallinat A, Moller CP, Busche D, Nugent W, et al. Comparison
of transvaginal ultrasound, hysteroscopy and dilatation and curettage in the diagnosis of
abnormal vaginal bleeding and intrauterine pathology in perimenopausal and
postmenopausal women. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002 Aug; 9(3):277-82.