Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2026
Collection, Isolation, and Flow Cytometric Analysis of Human Endocervical Samples
Published on: July 6, 2014
Endocervical sampling: a comparison of endocervical brush, endocervical curette, and combined brush with curette
C A Gibson1, C E Trask, P House
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (in conjunction with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England), University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, USA.
Objective:
This study was conducted to compare the collection of endocervical specimens by endocervical brush, curette, and a combined curette and brush technique.
Methods:
Women underwent colposcopy with endocervical curettage using one of 3 collection methods.
Results:
The endocervical brush produced equivalent amounts of tissue and endocervical cells compared to the curette alone or combined techniques. More squamous and glandular atypia and SIL/AIS were found when a brush was used, but a statistically significant difference was not noted. The brush alone produced a significantly greater percentage of samples that were insufficient for diagnosis and more specimens without stromal components. The brush with the curette as a combined technique provided no improvement in amounts of tissue, endocervical cells/clusters, or amount of stroma retrieved.
Conclusion:
Each technique has advantages and disadvantages in terms of what types of components are collected and what diagnosis may be determined from the sample taken.
