Evaluation of Cervical Biopsies Guided by Visual Inspection With Acetic Acid

Departments of 1Gynaecology and Obstetrics and 2Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Minia University, El-Minia, Egypt.
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease (Impact Factor: 1.99). 06/2013; 18(1). DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31828ce581
Source: PubMed


To evaluate the accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) in determining the site, the size, and the number of cervical biopsies in patients with positive cervical cytology.

This study included 486 patients with positive cervical cytology who presented to the Gynaecological Oncology Unit of Minia Maternity University Hospital, Egypt, in the period between January 2008 and September 2011. Visual inspection with acetic acid was done for all patients. They were classified into 2 groups according to the results of VIA. Group 1 included VIA-negative women, whereas group 2 included VIA-positive women. All patients were reexamined with colposcopy to prove or disprove the presence of lesions. Cervical biopsies were taken from patients with positive VIA or colposcopically confirmed lesions using punch biopsy forceps. Biopsies were sent for histologic examination.

In group 1, 100 patients were VIA-negative, 66 of them were histopathologically free, whereas 34 patients had positive biopsy results. Group 2 included 386 patients: 31 were histologically free, 239 had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1, whereas 116 had CIN 2 or worse.

Visual inspection with acetic acid is a good test for aiding the diagnosis of CIN and may be helpful in determining the site, the size, and the number of biopsies in patients with positive cytologic results. Instead of colposcopy, VIA can be used in developing countries where colposcopic services are not available.

Download full-text


Available from: Wafaey Gomaa, Aug 27, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare loop excisions of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) under video exoscopy, or colposcopic guidance, with respect to safety and effectiveness. Prospective multicentric randomized trial of 300 patients, undergoing loop excision for CIN 2+ either under video exoscopy (group A) or colposcope (group B) guidance. Intra- and post-operative complications, resection margins, and removed cervical volume in both groups were evaluated. 19.3 % of patients in video exoscopy group and 15.5 % in colposcopy group (p = 0.67) had transformation zone (TZ) 3. 45/151 (29.8 %) of group A patients and 48/149 (32.2 %) of group B patients underwent top-hat procedure, i.e., one superficial excision followed by one deeper removal of the endocervical tissue (p = 0.74). There was no difference in intra- and post-operative complications in the two groups. Positive endocervical resection margins (R0) were 9.9 % in video exoscopy group and 8.7 % in colposcopy group, respectively. Unclear endocervical resection margins (Rx) were 2.0 % in both groups. Mean total excised cervical volume was 1.20 cubic centimeter (cc³) in group A, and 1.24 cc³ in group B, respectively. Recurrent disease occurred in 2.3 % of patients at 6 months follow-up. Magnification assisted loop excision of CIN 2+ is equally effective and safe under colposcopic and video exoscopy guidance. The latter technique could potentially offer an alternative treatment of CIN 2+ lesions for doctors unfamiliar with colposcope.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2013 · Archives of Gynecology