Reproductive biomedicine online · 2023
Value of 2D ultrasonography in the diagnosis and evaluation of intrauterine adhesions - a prospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huang Rui, Huang Xiaowu, Li Sijing, Zhao Yuting, Lv Xiaodan, Li YingTao, Saravelos Sotirios, Cheng Qi, Xia Enlan, Li Tin-Chiu
Аннотация
RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the value of 2D ultrasonography in the diagnosis and assessment of intrauterine adhesions (IUA)?
DESIGN: This was a prospective study conducted at a hysteroscopy centre.
RESULTS: Of a total of 600 subjects recruited, 41 dropped out and 559 were finally enrolled and analysed. The observed 2D ultrasonography features, in decreasing order of frequency, were 'irregular endometrium' (37.9%), 'broken endometrial echo' (23.4%), 'thin endometrium' (13.7%), 'loss of endometrial echo' (13.1%,), 'hyperechoic focus' (12.5%) and 'fluid in the cavity' (8.8%). The sensitivity of individual ultrasound features ranged from 8.8% to 37.9%, whereas the specificity of individual ultrasound features ranged from 78.9% to 100%. When all the six ultrasound features were considered together, the sensitivity and specificity were 71.7% and 66.2% respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of ultrasound diagnosis in the mid-proliferative phase, peri-ovulatory phase and mid-luteal phase did not appear to be significantly different statistically, although the results in the mid-proliferative phase appeared to be consistently higher than those in the mid-luteal phase. In women confirmed to have IUA, the likelihood of the adhesions being severe in nature in the presence of zero, one, two or three or more ultrasound features was 8.7%, 23.0%, 40.2% and 80.5%, respectively (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this study support the notions that ultrasonography examination in women suspected to have IUA cannot replace hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of the condition. However, it does provide useful clinical information regarding severity and could help in the planning of hysteroscopy to optimize management.
DESIGN: This was a prospective study conducted at a hysteroscopy centre.
RESULTS: Of a total of 600 subjects recruited, 41 dropped out and 559 were finally enrolled and analysed. The observed 2D ultrasonography features, in decreasing order of frequency, were 'irregular endometrium' (37.9%), 'broken endometrial echo' (23.4%), 'thin endometrium' (13.7%), 'loss of endometrial echo' (13.1%,), 'hyperechoic focus' (12.5%) and 'fluid in the cavity' (8.8%). The sensitivity of individual ultrasound features ranged from 8.8% to 37.9%, whereas the specificity of individual ultrasound features ranged from 78.9% to 100%. When all the six ultrasound features were considered together, the sensitivity and specificity were 71.7% and 66.2% respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of ultrasound diagnosis in the mid-proliferative phase, peri-ovulatory phase and mid-luteal phase did not appear to be significantly different statistically, although the results in the mid-proliferative phase appeared to be consistently higher than those in the mid-luteal phase. In women confirmed to have IUA, the likelihood of the adhesions being severe in nature in the presence of zero, one, two or three or more ultrasound features was 8.7%, 23.0%, 40.2% and 80.5%, respectively (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this study support the notions that ultrasonography examination in women suspected to have IUA cannot replace hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of the condition. However, it does provide useful clinical information regarding severity and could help in the planning of hysteroscopy to optimize management.