Hakverdi, SibelGungoren, ArifHakverdi, Ali UlviDolapcioglu, KenanCiftci, SinasiKaya, ZozanYalinkaya, Ahmet2024-09-182024-09-1820082149-93222149-9330https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12483/9522Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic inadequacy of dilatation and curettage (D&C) by comparing histologic findings derived from D&C with histologic findings obtained after hysterectomy procedure retrospectively. Material and methods: Files of 259 patients with abnormal uterine bleeding who underwent hysterectomy within two months of a diagnostic D&C were analyzed. All patients had gynecologic and ultrasonographic examination, then they underwent D&C procedure under anesthesia. Hysterectomy was performed accordingly due to the histologic findings or persistence of the symptoms. Histologic diagnosis in D&C and after hysterectomy for each patient were compared. Results: 54.5% of the women had no pathology in D&C techniques. 59.5% of remaining patients had the same the pathologic findings in the hysterectomy specimens. In 105 of 259 patients, D&C failed to detect intrauterine disorders subsequently found at hysterectomy. After hysterectomy, in 227 of 259 patients were found additional pathologic abnormalities besides the histologic diagnosis in D&C specimens. Conclusions: D&C involves additional hospital costs and risk of complications; uterine perforation, infection and laceration of the cervix. If there are lesions in the uterus, dilatation and curettage is an inadequate diagnostic tool. D&C missed 40.5% of major intrauterine disorders and endometrial lesions were still present in the removed uterus. Therefore D&C can not be assessed as a therapeutic tool. Therefore D&C is suggested to be replaced by alternative and more accurate methods of diagnosis of endometrial abnormalities.trinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessdilatation and curettageendometrial pathologyhysterectomyArticle53202206WOS:000422490300007N/A