Open AccessA comparative study of 2-dimensional sonohysterography versus 3-dimensional sonohysterography in infertile patients with uterine cavity lesions and abnormalities
Author(s) -
M. Aboulghar,
I.K. Shoeir,
M. Momtaz,
M. El Mohammady,
Hatoon Ezzat
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
middle east fertility society journal/middle east fertility society journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.322
H-Index - 18
eISSN - 2090-3251
pISSN - 1110-5690
DOI - 10.1016/j.mefs.2010.12.001
Subject(s) - uterine cavity , medicine , gynecology , uterus
Objective: To compare 2-dimensional sonohysterography to 3-dimensional sonohysterography in detection of uterine cavity abnormalities in infertile patients.Design: Prospective controlled study.Patients and methods: Seventy seven infertile patients underwent the following transvaginal ultrasound techniques; 2D and 2D sonohysterography, 3D and 3D sonohysterography. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy of 2D sonohysterography and 3D sonohysterography were calculated and compared to the gold standard of hysteroscopy laparoscopy.Results: All 77 patients were studied using all four techniques. Both techniques of 2D and 3D sonohysterography were effective in reaching correct diagnosis. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of 2D sonohysterography was; 87.2, 100, 100, 84.2, 92.4, and 89.3 and that of 3D sonohysterography was; 100, 100, 86.4, and 93.6. The highest accuracy was obtained in diagnosis of endometrial polyps (98.7 and 100) and Mullerian anomalies (98.7 and 100) and the least with intrauterine synechiae (93.4 and 94.7).Conclusion: 2D and 3D sonohysterography perform similarly in the diagnosis of uterine abnormalities as compared to hysteroscopy laparoscopy. If 3D technology is not available, 2D sonohysterography performs just as well