Ceska gynekologie · 2022
Contribution of ultrasound examination in the detection of unexpected uterine and adnexal findings in reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
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.
Smažinka Martin, Havíř Martin, Rušavý Zdeněk, Vlasák Pavel, Kovářová Veronika, Veverková Adéla, Ismail Khaled Mostafa, Kališ Vladimír
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Objective: Current urogynaecology practice allows preservation of the uterus in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, thus not reducing oncologic risk.
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound (USG) in dia-gnosing unexpected uterine and adnexal pathologies in women referred for POP. Furthermore, the benefit of USG examination by a specialist in gynaecology-oncology ultrasound was assessed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All women after a hysterectomy with or without adnexectomy in the course of a POP surgery at our tertiary centre in 2013-2018 with preoperative USG were enrolled in the study. Women with recurrent uterine bleeding, abnormal cytology, using tamoxifen, or women with already dia-gnosed uterine or adnexal pathology were excluded.
RESULTS: 289 women were enrolled in the study - 157 (54.3%) expert USG vs. 132 (45.7%) non-expert USG. Abnormal findings were observed on the cervix in one case (non-expert USG), the endometrium 30 (10.4%) cases - 13 (8.3%) expert vs. 17 (12.9%) non-expert USG, the adnexa three (2.3%) cases (all non-expert USG), and no suspicion of malignancy on myometrium was observed. USG was false negative in four (1.4%) cases - two (1.3%) expert vs. two (1.5%) non-expert USG. Conversely, the examination was false positive in 34 (11.8%) cases - 13 (8.3%) expert vs. 21 (15.9%) non-expert USG.
CONCLUSION: The risk of unexpected uterine or adnexal pathologies in POP surgery was 1.4%. The agreement between USG and histopathological benign, abnormal or malign findings was 87.2%. A sonographer specialized in oncologic sonography is able to reduce the number of false positive findings; however, this does not increase the sensitivity of the ultrasound.
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound (USG) in dia-gnosing unexpected uterine and adnexal pathologies in women referred for POP. Furthermore, the benefit of USG examination by a specialist in gynaecology-oncology ultrasound was assessed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All women after a hysterectomy with or without adnexectomy in the course of a POP surgery at our tertiary centre in 2013-2018 with preoperative USG were enrolled in the study. Women with recurrent uterine bleeding, abnormal cytology, using tamoxifen, or women with already dia-gnosed uterine or adnexal pathology were excluded.
RESULTS: 289 women were enrolled in the study - 157 (54.3%) expert USG vs. 132 (45.7%) non-expert USG. Abnormal findings were observed on the cervix in one case (non-expert USG), the endometrium 30 (10.4%) cases - 13 (8.3%) expert vs. 17 (12.9%) non-expert USG, the adnexa three (2.3%) cases (all non-expert USG), and no suspicion of malignancy on myometrium was observed. USG was false negative in four (1.4%) cases - two (1.3%) expert vs. two (1.5%) non-expert USG. Conversely, the examination was false positive in 34 (11.8%) cases - 13 (8.3%) expert vs. 21 (15.9%) non-expert USG.
CONCLUSION: The risk of unexpected uterine or adnexal pathologies in POP surgery was 1.4%. The agreement between USG and histopathological benign, abnormal or malign findings was 87.2%. A sonographer specialized in oncologic sonography is able to reduce the number of false positive findings; however, this does not increase the sensitivity of the ultrasound.