Three-dimensional hysterosonography versus hysteroscopy for the detection of intracavitary uterine abnormalities

✍ Scribed by N. Makris; K. Kalmantis; N. Skartados; A. Papadimitriou; G. Mantzaris; A. Antsaklis

• Book ID: 116553882
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Year: 2007
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 209 KB
• Volume: 97
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0020-7292
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.012

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

Objective: To compare 3‐dimentional hysterosonography (3‐DHS) and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the evaluation of intrauterine lesions. Methods: In this prospective study 124 women with suspected intrauterine abnormality on 2‐D ultrasonography or on hysterosalpingography were scheduled to undergo hysteroscopy, 3‐DHS, and 3‐D power Doppler (3‐DPD) examination. However, 3‐DHS could not be performed in 3 of the women because of cervical stenosis. The sensitivity and specificity of 3‐DHS and 3‐DPD were compared with those of hysteroscopy. Results: Of the 121 women found to have an intracavitary abnormality, 20 had polyps, 11 had myomas, 2 had Müllerian duct anomalies, and 6 had synechiae on hysteroscopy. There was agreement between hysteroscopy and 3‐DHS in 19 of the polyp cases, 11 of the myoma cases, 2 of the Müllerian anomaly cases, and 4 of the synechiae cases. Examination with 3‐DHS and 3‐DPD reached a sensitivity of 91.9% and specificity of 98.8%, with a positive predictive value of 97.1% and a negative predictive value of 96.5%, respectively. Conclusions: Examination with 3‐DHS and 3‐DPD both allows for accurate assessment of intrauterine abnormalities.