A comparative study of different ultrasonic imaging modalities in the diagnosis of congenital uterine malformation

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2016.05.007

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To discuss the accuracy of 2D ultrasonography (2D-US) and 3D ultrasonography (3D-US, Render mode and Omni view mode) in diagnosing congenital uterine malformation, and explore a more suitable ultrasonic examination method for clinical practice.

Methods

One hundred and fifty-nine patients with suspected uterine malformation had been examined by 2D-US and 3D-US in Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University from September 2011 to January 2013. Uterine coronal plane was reconstructed and measured by two 3D-US imaging modes respectively. Then qualitative diagnosis and categorization was done. The diagnostic accuracy of the 2D-US and 3D-US was compared according to the results of hysteroscopy, hysteroscopy combined with laparoscope, hysterosalpingography (HSG) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Results

In comparison with the results of hysteroscopy, hysteroscopy combined with laparoscope, HSG or MRI, the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-US Render mode (78.6%, 125/159) and Omni view mode (81.8%, 130/159) was higher than 2D-US (52.8%, 84/159). There was statistical difference between 2D-US and 3D-US imaging modes (Render mode: χ²=23.465, P<0.01, Omni view mode: χ²=30.234, P<0.01) in diagnostic accuracy of congenital uterine malformation.

Conclusions

3D ultrasonography is more accurate than 2D ultrasonography in diagnosing congenital uterine malformation. Both of Omni view and Render imaging mode can be used for the diagnosis of uterine malformation.

Key words: Ultrasonography, three-dimensional, Congenital uterine malformation, Diagnostic techniques, obstetrical and gynecological

Fangyuan Zheng, Yuqing Zhou, Long Sui, Yunyun Ren, Beibei Dai, Ru Lin. A comparative study of different ultrasonic imaging modalities in the diagnosis of congenital uterine malformation[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2016, 13(05): 353-360.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://chaosheng.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2016.05.007

https://chaosheng.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2016/V13/I05/353

Figures/Tables 6

References 17

[1]	The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusionsecondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions [J]. Fertil Steril, 1988, 49(6): 944-955.
[2]	Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, et al. Reproductive impact of congenital Müllerian anomalies [J]. Hum Reprod, 1997, 12(10): 2277-2281.
[3]	Marcal L, Nothaft MA, Coelho F, et al. Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging [J]. Abdom Imaging, 2011, 36(6): 756-764.
[4]	Faivre E, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uteruscompared with office hysteroscopy and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging [J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2012, 19(1): 101-106.
[5]	Yu LL, Zhang X, Zhang T, et al. Detection of congenital uterine malformation by using transvaginal three-dimensional ultrasound [J]. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci, 2014, 34(5): 782-784.
[6]	赵凡桂, 周毓青, 隋龙, 等. 三维超声C平面在先天性子宫畸形诊断及分型中的应用[J].实用妇产科杂志, 2011(6): 432-435.
[7]	Szkodziak P, Woźniak S, Czuczwar P, et al. Usefulness of three dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography and hysterosalpingography in diagnosing uterine anomalies [J]. Ginekol Pol, 2014, 85(5): 354-359.
[8]	Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, et al. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2003, 21(6): 578-582.
[9]	Kupesic S, Plavsic BM. 2D and 3D hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography in the assessment of uterine cavity and tubal patency [J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2007, 133(1): 64-69.
[10]	Puscheck EE, Cohen L. Congenital malformations of the uterus: the role of ultrasound [J]. Semin Reprod Med, 2008, 26(3): 223-231.
[11]	Miseljic N, Izetbegovic S, Mehmedbasic S, et al. Congenital anomalies of the uterus, and ultrasound diagnostics [J]. Med Arh, 2010, 64(2): 119-120.
[12]	Maymon R, Herman A, Ariely S, et al. Three-dimensional vaginal sonography in obstetrics and gynaecology [J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2000, 6(5): 475-484.
[13]	曹泽毅. 中华妇产科学[M].北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2004: 1430.
[14]	何雪冬, 刘巧巧, 蔡海国, 等. 先天性子宫畸形二维及三维超声诊断及图像分析[J/CD].中华医学超声杂志:电子版, 2013(7): 564-567.
[15]	王家奎, 龚丽君. 经阴道三维超声自由解剖成像对先天性子宫畸形的诊断价值及图像分析[J/CD].中华医学超声杂志:电子版, 2015(2): 122-127.
[16]	章梦薇, 张国福, 韩志刚, 等. 先天性子宫畸形的磁共振诊断价值[J].中国临床医学影像杂志, 2012(5): 335-337.
[17]	Bocca SM, Abuhamad AZ. Use of 3-dimensional sonography to assess uterine anomalies [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2013, 32(1): 1-6.

超声检查方法	例数	弓形子宫	纵隔子宫		双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	分型不明	正常子宫
超声检查方法	例数	弓形子宫	不全纵隔	完全纵隔	双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	分型不明	正常子宫
二维超声	159	12	61	19	0	3	5	25^a	34
三维Render模式	159	60	49	24	1	3	6	0	16
三维Omniview模式	159	55	54	24	1	3	6	0	16

超声检查方法	例数	弓形子宫	纵隔子宫		双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	分型不明	正常子宫
超声检查方法	例数	弓形子宫	不全纵隔	完全纵隔	双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	分型不明	正常子宫
二维超声	159	12	61	19	0	3	5	25^a	34
三维Render模式	159	60	49	24	1	3	6	0	16
三维Omniview模式	159	55	54	24	1	3	6	0	16

检查方法	例数	弓形子宫	纵隔子宫		双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	正常子宫
检查方法	例数	弓形子宫	不全纵隔	完全纵隔	双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	正常子宫
宫腔镜和（或）腹腔镜	123	20	63	13	1	3	1	22
子宫输卵管造影	21	12	0	0	0	0	5	4
磁共振检查	15	2	5	8	0	0	0	0
合计	159	34	68	21	1	3	6	26

检查方法	例数	弓形子宫	纵隔子宫		双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	正常子宫
检查方法	例数	弓形子宫	不全纵隔	完全纵隔	双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	正常子宫
宫腔镜和（或）腹腔镜	123	20	63	13	1	3	1	22
子宫输卵管造影	21	12	0	0	0	0	5	4
磁共振检查	15	2	5	8	0	0	0	0
合计	159	34	68	21	1	3	6	26

检查方法	弓形子宫	纵隔子宫		双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	正常子宫	正确诊断	漏误诊
检查方法	弓形子宫	不全纵隔	完全纵隔	双角子宫	双子宫	单角子宫	正常子宫	正确诊断	漏误诊
二维超声	8（8/34）	41（41/68）	12（12/21）	0（0/1）	3（3/3）	5（5/6）	15（15/26）	84（84/159）	75（75/159）
三维Render模式	33（33/34）	46（46/68）	21（21/21）	1（1/1）	3（3/3）	6（6/6）	15（15/26）	125（125/159）	34（34/159）
三维Omniview模式	33（33/34）	51（51/68）	21（21/21）	1（1/1）	3（3/3）	6（6/6）	15（15/26）	130（130/159）	29（29/159）
临床最终诊断	34（34/34）	68（68/68）	21 （21/21）	1（1/1）	3（3/3）	6（6/6）	26（26/26）	159（159/159）	0（0/159）

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export