Premium
Three‐dimensional multiplanar sonohysterography: comparison with conventional two‐dimensional sonohysterography and X‐ray hysterosalpingography.
Author(s) -
Lev-Toaff A S,
Pinheiro L W,
Bega G,
Kurtz A B,
Goldberg B B
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
journal of ultrasound in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 91
eISSN - 1550-9613
pISSN - 0278-4297
DOI - 10.7863/jum.2001.20.4.295
Subject(s) - hysterosalpingography , medicine , radiology , uterine cavity , coronal plane , ultrasonography , uterus , infertility , pregnancy , genetics , biology
The objective of this study was to assess the value of combining transvaginal sonohysterography with three‐dimensional multiplanar ultrasonography to optimize assessment of the uterus. To make this assessment, we compared findings on three‐dimensional sonohysterography with those on two‐dimensional sonohysterography and X‐ray hysterosalpingography. Of 20 women who underwent three‐dimensional sonohysterography for various indications, 13 also underwent two‐dimensional sonohysterography, and 12 had X‐ray hysterosalpingography. We reviewed the 3 types of examinations separately and compared the standard techniques with three‐dimensional sonohysterography to determine whether three‐dimensional sonohysterography provided additional information. In 9 (69%) of 13 comparisons between three‐dimensional sonohysterography and two‐dimensional sonohysterography and in 11 (92%) of 12 comparisons between three‐dimensional sonohysterography and X‐ray hysterosalpingography, three‐dimensional sonohysterography was advantageous. The coronal plane was most useful for displaying the relationship between lesions and the uterine cavity. Three‐dimensional sonohysterography provided additional information compared with standard accepted techniques in the vast majority of women.