Two- and Three-Dimensional Ultrasonography and Sonohysterography versus Hysteroscopy With Laparoscopy in the Differential Diagnosis of Septate, Bicornuate, and Arcuate Uteri

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 90-99

  Ludwin, Artur ^a,b   Pityński, Kazimierz ^a   Ludwin, Inga ^a,b   Banas, Tomasz ^a   Knafel, Anna ^a  

^a JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^b Centermed Hospital and Clinic   (Poland)

Author keywords

3 dimensional ultrasonography; Arcuate uterus; Bicornuate uterus; Congenital uterine malformations; Septate uterus; Sonohysterography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARCUATE UTERUS; ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYSTEROSCOPY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INFERTILITY; LAPAROSCOPY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECURRENT ABORTION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL ECHOGRAPHY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; TWO DIMENSIONAL ECHOGRAPHY; TWO DIMENSIONAL SONOHYSTEROGRAPHY; UTERINE FUNDUS; UTERUS BICORNIS; UTERUS MALFORMATION; UTERUS SEPTUS;

ADULT; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTEROSCOPY; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LAPAROSCOPY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UROGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; UTERUS;

EID: 84872324428     PISSN: 15534650     EISSN: 15534669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.09.011     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Chan Y.Y., Jayaprakasan K., Zamora J., Thornton J.G., Raine-Fenning N., Coomarasamy A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2011, 17:761-771.
2. Saravelos S.H., Cocksedge K.A., Li T.C. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 2008, 14:415-429.
3. Buttram V.C., Gomel V., Siegler A., DeCherney A., Gibbons W., March C. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988, 49:944-955.
4. Raga F., Bauset C., Remohi J., Bonilla-Musoles F., Simón C., Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Müllerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 1997, 12:2277-2281.
5. Acien P. Shall we operate on mullerian defects? Incidence of mullerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod 1997, 12:1372-1376.
6. Homer H.A., Li T.C., Cooke I.D. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2000, 73:1-14.
7. Woelfer B., Salim R., Banerjee S., Elson J., Regan L., Jurkovic D. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol 2001, 98:1099-1103.
8. Jurkovic D., Geipel A., Gruboeck K., Jauniaux E., Natucci M., Campbell S. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995, 5:233-237.
9. Wu M.H., Hsu C.C., Huang K.E. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound 1997, 25:487-492.
10. Braun P., Grau F.V., Pons R.M., Enguix D.P. Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study. Eur J Radiol 2005, 53:274-279.
11. Andreotti R.F., Fleischer A.C., Mason L.E. Three-dimensional sonography of the endometrium and adjacent myometrium: preliminary observations. J Ultrasound Med 2006, 25:1313-1319.
12. Guimarães Filho H.A., Mattar R., Pires C.R., Araujo Júnior E., Moron A.F., Nardozza L.M. Comparison of hysterosalpingography, hysterosonography and hysteroscopy in evaluation of the uterine cavity in patients with recurrent pregnancy losses. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2006, 274:284-288.
13. Momtaz M.M., Ebrashy A.N., Marzouk A.A. Three-dimensional ultrasonography in the evaluation of the uterine cavity. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2007, 12:41-46.
14. Ludwin A., Ludwin I., Banas T., Knafel A., Miedzyblocki M., Basta A. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, hysterosalpingography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in diagnosis of arcuate, septate and bicornuate uterus. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2011, 37:178-186.
15. Olpin J.D., Heilbrun M. Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009, 52:40-56.
16. Pellerito J.S., McCarthy S.M., Doyle M.B., Glickman M.G., DeCherney A.H. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1992, 183:795-800.
17. Syed I, Hussain H, Weadock W, Ellis J. Uterus, Mullerian duct abnormalities. eMedicine. 2011. Available at: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/405335-overview.
18. Fedale L., Bianchi S., Marchini M., Mezzopane R., DiNola G., Tozzi L. Residual uterine septum of less than 1 cm after hysteroscopic metroplasty does not impair reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod 1996, 11:727-729.
19. Hanley J.A., Hajian-Tikali K.O. Sampling variability of nonparametric estimates of the area under receiver operating characteristics curves: an update. Academic Radiol 1997, 4:49-58.
20. Kupesic S. Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001, 18:387-400.
21. Bermejo C., Martínez Ten P., Cantarero R., et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010, 35:593-601.
22. Ghate S.V., Crockett M.M., Boyd B.K., Paulson E.K. Sonohysterography: do 3D reconstructed images provide additional value?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 190:W227-W233.
23. Troiano R.N., McCarthy S.M. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004, 233:19-34.
24. Valenzano M.M., Mistrangelo E., Lijoi D., et al. Transvaginal sonohysterographic evaluation of uterine malformations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006, 124:246-249.
25. Alatas C., Aksoy E., Akarsu C., Yakin K., Aksoy S., Hayran M. Evaluation of intrauterine abnormalities in infertile patients by sonohysterography. Hum Reprod 1997, 12:487-490.
26. Nicolini U., Bellotti M., Bonazzi B., Zamberletti D., Candiani G.B. Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations?. Fertil Steril 1987, 47:89-93.
27. Soares S.R., Barbosa dos Reis M.M., Camargos A.F. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity diseases. Fertil Steril 2000, 73:406-411.
28. Salim R., Woelfer B., Backos M., Regan L., Jurkovic D. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003, 21:578-582.
29. Alborzi S., Dehbashi S., Parsanezhad M.E. Differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uterus by sonohysterography eliminates the need for laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 2002, 78:176-178.
30. Shalev J., Dicker D. [letter] Predictive values of transvaginal sonography in specifying bicornuate and septate uterus?. Fertil Steril 2003, 79:1254.
31. Benacerraf B.R., Shipp T.D., Bromley B. Which patients benefit from a 3D reconstructed coronal view of the uterus added to standard routine 2D pelvic sonography?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 190:626-629.