OC190: Three‐dimensional transvaginal sonography in the evaluation of the uterine cavity

Abstract

Oral communication abstracts sonohysterography & invited to enter the SISES study. Ninetyeight patients were prospectively recruited. SISES was performed at the end of sonohysterography using a Uterine Explora II Curette at the sight of the endometrial abnormality or at a representative site in the uterine cavity if the endometrial cavity was normal. The histopathologic diagnoses of EMB & SISES were compared to a gold-standard pathological diagnosis obtained on hysteroscopy-D&C or hysterectomy specimen. Kappa values for the two different sampling techniques were compared. Results: Eighty-eight SISES samples were obtained. The Kappa between SISES & final pathology was 0.37 (0.20, 0.53). When comparing EMB to final pathology diagnoses, the Kappa was only 0.13 (−0.03, 0.29). EMB underestimated the incidence of pathology, especially when focal lesions & malignancy were present. This difference was statistically significant, with a P-value of 0.0448. Sonohysterography outperformed both sampling techniques, with a Kappa of 0.74 (0.63, 0.86). Classification n Kappa (95% CI) EMB 51 0.13 (−0.03, 0.29) SISES 88 0.37 (0.20, 0.53) Sonohysterography 91 0.74 (0.63, 0.86) Conclusion: SISES is superior to EMB in diagnosing endometrial pathology in peri-& postmenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding.

The role of the three-dimensional ultrasound in uterine evaluation in patients with reproductive failure: A comparative study

“…While 3D ultrasound sensitivity was 100% to myomas & 66.7% to polyps. Regarding specifi city, in Momtaz specifi city of HSG was 91% & specifi city of 3D ultrasound was 97%, while in current study specifi city of HSG was 86.8% to myomas & 100% to polyps [10]. 0 00% 0% 0% 0% 0% % 0% % 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0% % 0 0% 0 0 0% % 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 0 10.…”

“…Positive Likelihood Ratio 11.7, 4.24, 14.7, 27.6 respectively. Negative Likelihood Ratio 0.47, 0.07, 0.08, 0.03 respectively [10].…”

Accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract

“…The accuracy of 3D‐US in diagnosing uterine malformations has been the subject of many studies since the first was published in 1995. These studies initially compared 3D‐US with hysterosalpingography, hysteroscopy and laparoscopy and found it was very good in terms of its diagnostic capabilities. Deutch et al compared MRI and 3D‐US results with surgical results, finding that 3D‐US had a sensitivity of 100% in both diagnosis and categorization of uterine abnormalities.…”

Endometrial Polyps and Subfertility

“…In our practice, we perform 3D imaging (Fig. 2) of the uterus as a routine during baseline ultrasound scans with the aim of improving diagnostic accuracy [14].…”