J Clin Gynecol Obstet

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics, ISSN 1927-1271 print, 1927-128X online, Open Access

Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Clin Gynecol Obstet and Elmer Press Inc

Journal website http://www.jcgo.org

Original Article

Volume 3, Number 1, February 2014, pages 35-41

The Value of Chromohysteroscopy in the Assessment of Postmenopausal Vaginal Bleeding

**Table 1.** Age Distribution and Parity of Patients Included in the Study
	Number of cases	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum	Median
Age distribution (in years)	50	57.5	6.3	47	72	58
Parity	50	3.4	1.3	1	6	3

Table 1. Age Distribution and Parity of Patients Included in the Study

Number of cases

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Median

Age distribution (in years)

57.5

6.3

Parity

3.4

1.3

**Table 2.** The Correlation Between Endometrial Thickness, Histopathological Diagnosis and Pattern of Subendometrial Perfusion Obtained by Power Doppler Endometrial
	Number	Mean	Std deviation	Median	Min.	Max.	Kruskal-Wallis test
*: Statistically significant. NEP: No endometrial pathology.
Atrophy	N=14	4.4	1.2	4.0	3.0	8.0	36.611	< 0.001*
Endometritis	N=5	8.0	3.7	6.0	5.0	12.0
Endometrial hyperplasia	N=4	16.5	4.7	15.5	12.0	23.0
Endometrial cancer	N=4	25.3	5.1	25.0	20.0	31.0
NEP	N=23	8.0	2.2	7.0	5.0	13.0

Table 2. The Correlation Between Endometrial Thickness, Histopathological Diagnosis and Pattern of Subendometrial Perfusion Obtained by Power Doppler Endometrial

Number

Mean

Std deviation

Median

Min.

Max.

Kruskal-Wallis test

Chi-square

P value

*: Statistically significant. NEP: No endometrial pathology.

Atrophy

N=14

4.4

1.2

4.0

3.0

8.0

36.611

< 0.001*

Endometritis

N=5

8.0

3.7

6.0

5.0

12.0

Endometrial hyperplasia

N=4

16.5

4.7

15.5

12.0

23.0

Endometrial cancer

N=4

25.3

5.1

25.0

20.0

31.0

NEP

N=23

8.0

2.2

7.0

5.0

13.0

**Table 3.** Different Chromohysteroscopy Patterns With Variable Pathology Results
Chromohysteroscopy pathology	Chromohysteroscopy stain
NEP: No endometrial pathology.
Atrophy	Count	12	0	2	14
% within chromohyst pathology	85.7%	0%	14.3%	100.0%
% within chromohys stain	31.6%	0%	28.6%	28.0%
Endometritis	Count	5	3	0	8
% within chromohyst pathology	62.5%	37.5%	0.0%	100.0%
% within chromohys stain	13.2%	60.0%	0.0%	16.0%
Endo hyperplasia	Count	6	0	0	6
% within chromohyst pathology	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
% within chromohys stain	15.8%	0.0%	0.0%	12.0%
Endo cancer	Count	2	2	0	4
% within chromohyst pathology	50.0%	50.0%	0.0%	100.0%
% within chromohys stain	5.3%	540.0%	0.0%	8.0%
NEP	Count	13	0	5	18
% within chromohyst pathology	72.2%	0.0%	27.8%	100.0%
% within Chromohys stain	34.2%	0.0%	71.4%	36.0%
Total	Count	38	5	7	50
% within chromohyst pathology	76.0%	10.0%	14.0%	100.0%
% within chromohys stain	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Table 3. Different Chromohysteroscopy Patterns With Variable Pathology Results

Chromohysteroscopy pathology

Chromohysteroscopy stain

Focal stain

Whole end

No stain

Total

NEP: No endometrial pathology.

Atrophy

Count

% within chromohyst pathology

85.7%

14.3%

100.0%

% within chromohys stain

31.6%

28.6%

28.0%

Endometritis

Count

% within chromohyst pathology

62.5%

37.5%

0.0%

100.0%

% within chromohys stain

13.2%

60.0%

0.0%

16.0%

Endo hyperplasia

Count

% within chromohyst pathology

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

% within chromohys stain

15.8%

0.0%

12.0%

Endo cancer

Count

% within chromohyst pathology

50.0%

0.0%

100.0%

% within chromohys stain

5.3%

540.0%

0.0%

8.0%

NEP

Count

% within chromohyst pathology

72.2%

0.0%

27.8%

100.0%

% within Chromohys stain

34.2%

0.0%

71.4%

36.0%

Total

Count

% within chromohyst pathology

76.0%

10.0%

14.0%

100.0%

% within chromohys stain

100.0%

**Table 4.** Comparison Between the Different Pathology Results Sampled Through Chromohysteroscopy and Ordinary Fractional Curettage
	Atrophy	Endometritis	Endo hyperplasia	Endo cancer	NEP	Total	Pearson’s Chi-square
*: Statistically significant.
Fractional curettage (cases)	14	5	4	4	23	50	33.016	< 0.001*
Chromo-hysteroscopy (cases)	14	8	6	4	18	50

Table 4. Comparison Between the Different Pathology Results Sampled Through Chromohysteroscopy and Ordinary Fractional Curettage

Atrophy

Endometritis

Endo hyperplasia

Endo cancer

NEP

Total

Pearson’s Chi-square

Value

P value

*: Statistically significant.

Fractional curettage (cases)

33.016

< 0.001*

Chromo-hysteroscopy (cases)