Adenomyosis: correlating clinical suspicion with histopathological diagnosis in a retrospective study

Authors

  • Preet Kamal Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Vallah, Amritsar, Punjab, India
  • Ripan Bala Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Vallah, Amritsar, Punjab, India
  • Madhu Nagpal Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Vallah, Amritsar, Punjab, India
  • Harleen Kaur Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Vallah, Amritsar, Punjab, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20195206

Keywords:

Abnormal uterine bleeding, Adenomyosis, Histopathological examination, Hysterectomy, Leiomyoma

Abstract

Background: Adenomyosis and leiomyoma are the common causes of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). In this study it is aimed to evaluate the correlation of clinical and histopathological examination (HPE) of these entities leading to abnormal uterine bleeding.

Methods: This retrospective study was carried out on hysterectomy specimens of subjects who presented themselves in the department of obstetrics and gynaecology of Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of medical sciences and research, Amritsar with chief complaints of AUB not responding to conservative treatment.

Results: A total of 100 women with clinical diagnosis of AUB in which hysterectomies were performed, leiomyoma was found in 42% cases, adenomyosis in 22% cases. The most frequent combination of diagnosis was leiomyoma and adenomyosis i.e. 26%. In 9% cases chronic cervicitis and ovarian cyst were detected. In one case endometrial malignancy was found.

Conclusions: Though adenomyosis and leiomyoma are clinically diagnosed along with other pathological conditions of the reproductive organs but their confirmation is still to be relied upon HPE; a most important investigation.

References

Dueholm M. Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:569-82.

Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1989;16:221-35.

Baird DD, Dunson DB, Hill MC, Cousins D, Schectman JM. High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: Ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:100-7.

Sajjad M, Iltaf S, Qayyum S. Pathological findings in Hysterectomy specimens of patients presenting with menorrhagia in different age groups. Ann Pak Inst Med Sci. 2011;7:160-2.

Sarfraz T, Tariq H. Histopathologic findings in menorrhagia a study of 100 hysterectomy specimens. Pak J Pathol. 2005;16:83-5.

Tahiira T, Qureshi S, Roohi M. Abdominal hysterectomy; performed by post graduate trainees. Professional Med J. 2007;14:685-8.

Khawaja N, Zahid B, Tayyeb R. Clinical audit of hysterectomies. Ann King Edward Med Coll. 2005;11:219-21.

Gerson W, Priya M, Laura LS, Sarah EB, Miriam S, Janet MJ. Adenomyosis a variant not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the SWAN study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(1)201-6.

Bird CC, McElin TW, Manalo-Estrella P. The elusive adenomyosiso the uterus-revisited. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972;112:583-93.

Hoffman BL. Williams Gynecology. 2nd ed. Mc Graw Hill, San Francisco; 2012:219-40.

Berek JS, Berek DL.16th Ed. Berek and Novak’s Gynaecology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Philadelphia; 2019:461-467.

Downloads

Published

2019-11-26

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles