Cytological techniques Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27(6):347-352
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032005000600009
PURPOSE: to assess the interference of two vaginal lubricants (vaseline and silicone) in the interpretation of cervical oncotic cytology. METHODS: a prospective research on one hundred women from August to October 2003. The women were divided into two groups of 50 patients each, according to the type of lubricant used. Two smears were obtained from every patient: the first specimen soon after the introduction of non-lubricated speculum and the second after the use of lubricated speculum with vaseline (Group V) or silicone (Group S). The samples were analyzed by two cytotechnicians, who were unaware of the origin of the smears. RESULTS: among the 100 pairs of slides, 8 results were partially different. The reasons for the differences were not directly related to the use of lubricant and did not interfere with the cytologic findings. The number of discordant results was 6 in Group S and 2 in Group V, without a statistically significant difference (p=0.269). The number of satisfactory and satisfactory but limited results was statistically similar regarding the use or not of lubricant: Group S: 46 satisfactory slides and 4 satisfactory but limited slides (p=0.001 and kappa=0.802) and Group V: 48 satisfactory and 2 satisfactory but limited slides (p=0.001 and kappa=0.953). There were no unsatisfactory results. No artefacts were found in slides obtained with lubricated speculum. CONCLUSION: the use of lubricated speculum with vaseline or silicone does not affect cervical oncotic cytology outcome.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27(6):347-352
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032005000600009
PURPOSE: to assess the interference of two vaginal lubricants (vaseline and silicone) in the interpretation of cervical oncotic cytology. METHODS: a prospective research on one hundred women from August to October 2003. The women were divided into two groups of 50 patients each, according to the type of lubricant used. Two smears were obtained from every patient: the first specimen soon after the introduction of non-lubricated speculum and the second after the use of lubricated speculum with vaseline (Group V) or silicone (Group S). The samples were analyzed by two cytotechnicians, who were unaware of the origin of the smears. RESULTS: among the 100 pairs of slides, 8 results were partially different. The reasons for the differences were not directly related to the use of lubricant and did not interfere with the cytologic findings. The number of discordant results was 6 in Group S and 2 in Group V, without a statistically significant difference (p=0.269). The number of satisfactory and satisfactory but limited results was statistically similar regarding the use or not of lubricant: Group S: 46 satisfactory slides and 4 satisfactory but limited slides (p=0.001 and kappa=0.802) and Group V: 48 satisfactory and 2 satisfactory but limited slides (p=0.001 and kappa=0.953). There were no unsatisfactory results. No artefacts were found in slides obtained with lubricated speculum. CONCLUSION: the use of lubricated speculum with vaseline or silicone does not affect cervical oncotic cytology outcome.