Sharp Versus Electric Suction Curettage in Gynecologic Patients Undergoing Evaluation for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding

Suction curettage is preferred over sharp curettage in obstetric settings. We compare the quality of operative tissue sampling between sharp curettage and suction curettage using electric vacuum aspiration for nonobstetric abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women.

A retrospective cohort study.

Community hospital in Long Island, New York.

Women ages 21 to 45 years (n = 257) who underwent operative curettage procedure for nonobstetric abnormal uterine bleeding.

Independent ratings of specimens from suction curettage using electric vacuum aspiration and sharp curettage by 2 pathologists blinded to method of tissue collection.

The primary outcome was percentage of organized tissue, indicative of a higher-quality pathology specimen. Specimens obtained by electric suction curettage (p <.001) had a significantly higher percentage of organized tissue (M = 66.28, SD = 20.33) than sharp curettage (M = 55.51, SD = 24.17). There were no differences between the curettage groups for operative time, blood loss, intraoperative complications, or pathology diagnosis.

Specimens obtained with suction curettage contained more organized tissue with similar pathologist satisfaction and confidence scores than sharp curettage. We suggest clinicians consider electric suction curettage in the diagnostic workup of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women. In addition, patient-centered benefits include no increase in operative time, blood loss, or complication rate compared with sharp curettage.