General Obstetrics and Gynecology: Gynecology
Endometritis: The clinical-pathologic syndrome,☆☆

https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.121728Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate histologically proved endometritis as a clinical syndrome that is distinct from laparoscopically confirmed salpingitis. Study design: This was a cross-sectional study of 152 women in an urban hospital with a suspected pelvic inflammatory disease. All women provided a standardized medical history and underwent physical examination, endometrial biopsy, and laparoscopy. We defined endometritis by the presence of plasma cells in endometrial stroma and neutrophils in the endometrial epithelium. Results: Of 152 women who were enrolled, 43 women had neither endometritis nor salpingitis; 26 women had endometritis alone without salpingitis, and 83 women had salpingitis. Those women with endometritis alone more often had douched recently, had a current intrauterine device, and were in menstrual cycle day 1 to 7, compared with women with no endometritis or salpingitis (P = .007, .04, .005, respectively) or women with acute salpingitis (P = .03, .01, .02, respectively). Infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae and/or Chlamydia trachomatis was found more frequently in women with endometritis alone than in women with no endometritis or salpingitis (P < .001) and less frequently than in women with salpingitis (P = .05). Lower quadrant, adnexal, cervical motion, rebound tenderness, peritonitis, tenderness score, fever, and laboratory abnormalities that indicated inflammation and detection of gonorrheal or chlamydial infection were significantly less common in women with endometritis alone than in women with salpingitis but were somewhat more common in women with endometritis alone than among women with no salpingitis or endometritis. Conclusion: Among women with suspected pelvic inflammatory disease, the histopathologic manifestations of endometritis were associated with clinical manifestations, infection, and specific risk factors that were intermediate in frequency between women with salpingitis and women with neither endometritis nor salpingitis. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:690-5.)

Section snippets

Patient population

As previously described,5152 women with clinically suspected PID when examined in the emergency department, women's clinic, or sexually transmitted diseases clinic at Harborview Medical Center from 1984 to 1988 were enrolled into this study of the cause, pathogenesis, and therapy of acute PID. Inclusion criteria for suspected PID were based on lower abdominal pain of ≤3 weeks and abnormal adnexal tenderness on pelvic examination. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, age of <15 years,

Results

Of 152 women with suspected PID who underwent laparoscopy, 43 women (28%) had neither endometritis nor salpingitis; 26 women (17%) had endometritis alone, and 83 women (55%) had salpingitis. Of the 83 women with salpingitis, 8 women did not undergo endometrial biopsy; 64 of the remaining 75 women (85%) had histologic evidence of endometritis.

Comment

In this study of 152 women with clinically suspected PID, 26 women had histologic manifestations of endometritis without laparoscopic evidence of acute salpingitis. To our knowledge, this is 1 of the largest published studies of women with suspected PID with concurrent endometrial histologic evidence and laparoscopic results, which allowed the women to be stratified into 3 groups: women without evidence of upper genital tract inflammation, women with endometritis alone, and women with

References (21)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (89)

  • A practical guide to the evaluation of benign endometrial conditions in biopsy and curettage material

    2022, Diagnostic Histopathology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Even more concerning is the wide variation in the management of chronic endometritis by gynecologists and obstetricians, also described by Margulies et al52 This survey revealed a wide spectrum of deficiencies in the understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic endometritis and the diagnostic methodologies applicable to this disease. While evidence-based, or at least consensus-based recommendations on the diagnostic criteria for chronic endometritis emerge, I make the diagnosis of chronic endometritis using the following (admittedly arbitrary and low-threshold) criteria (Figure 12): 1) two or more plasma cells in an otherwise unremarkable endometrium, or 2) one or more plasma cells in association with fibrotic or edematous stroma and/or mucinous or tubal glandular metaplasia.39,53 Lymphocyte aggregates and eosinophils, by themselves, are not sufficient for the diagnosis, but often accompany plasma cells in cases of chronic endometritis.54

  • Impact of chronic endometritis in infertility: a SWOT analysis

    2021, Reproductive BioMedicine Online
    Citation Excerpt :

    Although immunohistochemical staining for CD138 has been found to improve the sensitivity and accuracy of identifying the plasma cells, the technique is not, however, standardized (Liu et al., 2018). The diagnosis seems to vary depending on the laboratory tests and the quality control used (Torlakivic et al., 2015), the dilution (Kasius et al., 2011; Torlakivic et al., 2015), the incubation time, the temperature, the thickness of endometrial sections, the number and area of sections examined (Adegboyega et al., 2010; Bayer-Garner et al., 2004; Eckert et al., 2002) as well as the menstrual cycle phase in which the biopsy is performed (Punnonen et al., 1989). With respect to the histological diagnosis, the suggestion to include both conventional pathological study and CD138 inmunohistochemical examination is crucial, since there is still a lack of consensus on a universal definition of chronic endometritis.

  • Nonneoplastic Lesions of the Endometrium

    2020, Gynecologic Pathology, Second Edition
View all citing articles on Scopus

Supported by National Institutes of Health grant No. AI 12192 and training grant No. AI 07140.

☆☆

Reprint requests: Linda O. Eckert, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Box 359865, 325 9th Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2499.

View full text