Diagnostic correlation between sonohysterography and hysteroscopy in the assessment of uterine cavity after cesarean section

Middle East Fertility Society Journal

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 72-76

  El Mazny, Akmal ^a   Abou Salem, Nermeen ^a   El Khayat, Waleed ^a   Farouk, Adel ^a  

^a CAIRO UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Hysteroscopy; Sonohysterography; Uterine cavity

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; SODIUM CHLORIDE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; HUMAN; HYSTEROGRAPHY; HYSTEROSCOPY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MENSTRUATION DISORDER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RECURRENT ABORTION; SCAR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SONOHYSTEROGRAPHY; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; UTERUS CAVITY; UTERUS DISEASE; UTERUS SCAR; UTERUS SYNECHIA;

EID: 79960473413     PISSN: 11105690     EISSN: 20903251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mefs.2010.07.015     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Hsu CC, Shieh GR, Wu CS, Shen HC, Tang CH. Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparisons of caesarean section rates in Taipei municipal hospitals. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;127(2):190-7.
2. Paré E, Quiñ ones JN, Macones GA. Vaginal birth after caesarean section versus elective repeat caesarean section: Assessment of maternal downstream health outcomes. BJOG 2006;113(1):75-85.
3. Asakura H, Nakai A, Ishikawa G, Suzuki S, Araki T. Prediction of uterine dehiscence by measuring lower uterine segment thickness prior to the onset of labor: evaluation by transvaginal ultrasonography. J Nippon Med Sch 2000;67(5):352-6.
4. Cheung VY. Sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment thickness in women with previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005;27(7):674-81.
5. de Kroon CD, Jansen FW, Louwé LA, Dieben SW, van Houwelingen HC, Trimbos JB. Technology assessment of saline contrast hysterosonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188(4): 945-9. (Pubitemid 36530043)
6. de Kroon CD, Jansen FW, Trimbos JB. Efficiency of saline contrast hysterosonography for evaluating the uterine cavity. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2003;147(32):1539-44. (Pubitemid 37069932)
7. Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, Benali N, van Rysselberghe M, Barlow P, et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23(3):289-92. (Pubitemid 38365809)
8. Birinyi L, Daragó P, Tö rö k P, Csiszá r P, Major T, Borsos A, et al. Predictive value of hysteroscopic examination in intrauterine abnormalities. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;115(1):75-9. (Pubitemid 38844222)
9. Sambaziotis H, Conway C, Figueroa R, Elimian A, Garry D. Second-trimester sonographic comparison of the lower uterine segment in pregnant women with and without a previous cesarean delivery. J Ultrasound Med 2004;23(7):907-11.
10. Montanari L, Alfei A, Drovanti A, Lepadatu C, Lorenzi D, Facchini D, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonic evaluation of the thickness of the section of the uterine wall in previous cesarean sections. Minerva Ginecol 1999;51(4):107-12.
11. Goldberg JM, Falcone T, Attaran M. Sonohysterographic evaluation of uterine abnormalities noted on hysterosalpingography. Hum Reprod 1997;12(10):2151-3. (Pubitemid 27494020)
12. Petrikovsky BM. Endoscopic assessment of the integrity of the postcesarean uterine wall before a trial of labor. Transcervical Endoscopy Registry. J Reprod Med 1994;39(6):464-6. (Pubitemid 24184954)
13. Yazicioglu F, Gö kdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygü n M, Savan K. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;124(1):32-6. (Pubitemid 43020924)
14. Greene R, Gardeit F, Turner MJ. Long-term implications of cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176(1 Pt. 1):254-5. (Pubitemid 127780782)
15. Seow KM, Huang LW, Lin YH, Lin MY, Tsai YL, Hwang JL. Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23(3):247-53. (Pubitemid 38365801)
16. Fabres C, Aviles G, De La Jara C, Escalona J, Munoz JF, Mackenna A, et al. The cesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implications and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22(7):695-702.
17. Cepni I, Ocal P, Erkan S, Saricali FS, Akbas H, Demirkiran F, et al. Comparison of transvaginal sonography, saline infusion sonography and hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine cavity pathologies. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;45(1):30-5. (Pubitemid 40424712)
18. Soares SR, Barbosa dos Reis MM, Camargos AF. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity diseases. Fertil Steril 2000;73(2):406-11. (Pubitemid 30060380)
19. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Technology Assessment in Obstetrics and Gynecology No. 5: onohysterography. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112(6):1467-9.
20. Elsayes KM, Pandya A, Platt JF, Bude RO. Technique and diagnostic utility of saline infusion sonohysterography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105(1):5-9.