Uterine cavity assessment in infertile women: Sensitivity and specificity of three-dimensional Hysterosonography versus Hysteroscopy

Firoozeh Ahmadi, Zohreh Rashidy, Hadieh Haghighi, Mohamadreza Akhoond, Maryam Niknejadi, Mandana Hemat, Mansour Shamsipour, Firoozeh Ahmadi, Zohreh Rashidy, Hadieh Haghighi, Mohamadreza Akhoond, Maryam Niknejadi, Mandana Hemat, Mansour Shamsipour

Abstract

Background: Assessment of uterine abnormalities is a core part in infertility evaluation.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of three-dimensional hysterosonography (3-DHS) in the diagnosis of uterine abnormalities in infertile women.

Materials and methods: The infertile women who visited Royan Institute and referred to 3-DHS consecutively, prior to in vitro fertilization, from 2010-2011 included in this cross-sectional study. For patients who underwent hysteroscopy in addition to 3-DHS (214/977), the verification bias adjusted sensitivity and specificity of 3-DHS which were calculated by global sensitivity analysis method. Hysteroscopy was used as the gold standard for diagnosis of uterine abnormalities. Histological diagnosis of resected endometrial tissues by hysteroscopy was assessed and the adjusted sensitivity and specificity of 3-DHS and hysteroscopy in detection of polyp or hyperplasia were determined. Histopathologic results were considered as the gold standard for diagnosis of polyp or hyperplasia.

Results: The overall sensitivity and specificity for 3-DHS in diagnosis of uterine anomalies considering hysteroscopy as the gold standard were 68.4% and 96.3% respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of hysteroscopy in diagnose of polyp or hyperplasia was calculated at 91.3% and 81.4% respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of 3-DHS in diagnosis polyps or hyperplasia was calculated at 91.4% and 80.2 % respectively.

Conclusion: The results of present study proved that, compared to hysteroscopy; 3-DHS has a reliable specificity for diagnosis of uterine abnormalities. Sensitivity and specificity of 3-DHS and hysteroscopy in detecting polyp or hyperplasia regarding histopathology as the gold standard was the same.

Keywords: Hysteroscopy; Three-dimensional hysterosonography; Uterine cavity.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results for the diagnosis of normal and abnormal cases of uterine pathologies diagnosed by hysteroscopy and 3-DHS

References

    1. Pundir J, El Toukhy T. Uterine cavity assessment prior to IVF. Womens Health (Lond Engl) . 2010;6:841–847.
    1. Bingol B, Gunenc MZ, Gedikbasi A, Guner H, Tasdemir S, Tiras B. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonohysterography,transvaginalsonography and hysteroscopy in postmenopausal bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet . 2011;284:111–117.
    1. Koskas M, Mergui JL, Yazbeck C, Uzan S, Nizard J. Office hysteroscopy for infertility: a series of 557 consecutive cases. Obstet Gynecol Int . 2010;2010:168096.
    1. Sylvestre C, Child TJ, Tulandi T, Tan SL. A prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of two- and three-dimensional sonohysterography in women with intrauterine lesions. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1222–1225.
    1. Brown SE, Coddington CC, Schnorr J, Toner JP, Gibbons W, Oehninger S. Evaluation of outpatient hysteroscopy, saline infusion hysterosonography, and hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril . 2000;74:1029–1034.
    1. La Sala GB, Blasi I, Gallinelli A, Debbi C, Lopopolo G, Vinci V, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography and transvaginal sonography as compared with hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy: a prospective study. Minerva Ginecol . 2011;63:421–427.
    1. Bartkowiak R, Kaminski P, Wielgos M, Bobrowska K. The evaluation of uterine cavity with saline infusion sonohysterography and hysteroscopy in infertile patients. Neuro Endocrinol Lett . 2006;27:523–528.
    1. Salim R, Lee C, Davies A, Jolaoso B, Ofuasia E, Jurkovic D. A comparative study of three-dimensional saline infusion sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the classification of submucous fibroids. Hum Reprod . 2005;20:253–257.
    1. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease is subject to selection bias. Biometrics . 1983;39:207–216.
    1. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Eng J Med . 1978;299:926–930.
    1. Nishikawa H, Imanaka Y, Sekimoto M, Hayashida K, Ikai H. Influence of verification bias on the assessment of MRI in the diagnosis of meniscal tear. Am J Roentgenol . 2009;193:1596–1602.
    1. Kosinski AS, Barnhart HX. A global sensitivity analysis of performance of a medical diagnostic test when verification bias is present. Stat Med . 2003;22:2711–2721.
    1. De Kroon CD, Jansen FW, Louwé LA, Dieben SW, van Houwelingen HC, Trimbos JB. Technology assessment of saline contrast hysterosonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:945–949.
    1. Alaetebi F, Fayek W. Sonohysterography Is a Reliable and Accurate Method For Investigating Uterine Factor Infertility. Evidence Based Women's Health J . 2011;10:100–107.
    1. Diaferia D, Ragni G, Vegetti W, Colombo M, Arnoldi M, Crosignani P G. Sonohysterography for Uterine Cavity Evaluation in Infertility Work-Up. Fertil Steril . 2000;74 (Suppl.):S30.
    1. Makris N, Kalmantis K, Skartados N, Papadimitriou A, Mantzaris G, Antsaklis A. Three-dimensional hysterosonography versus hysteroscopy for the detection of intracavitary uterine abnormalities. Int J Gynaecol Obstet . 2007;97:6–9.
    1. Guven MA, Bese T, Demirkiran F, Idil M, Mgoyi L. Hydrosonography in screening for intracavitary pathology in infertile women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet . 2004;86:377–383.
    1. Acholonu Jr UC, Silberzweig J, Stein DE, Keltz M. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and sonohysterography to hysteroscopy for the evaluation of intrauterine abnormalities in infertile patients. Fertil Steril . 2008;90 (Suppl.):S454.
    1. Ayida G, Chamberlain P, Barlow D, Kennedy S. Uterine cavity assessment prior to in vitro fertilization: comparison of transvaginal scanning, saline contrast hysterosonography and hysteroscopy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;10:59–62.
    1. Aboulghar MM, Shoeir IK, Momtaz M, Mohammady Mel, Ezzat H. A comparative study of 2-dimensional sonohysterography versus 3-dimensional sonohysterography in infertile patients with uterine cavity lesions and abnormalities. Middle East Fertil Soc J . 2011;16:67–71.
    1. Greenes RA, Begg CB. Assessment of diagnostic technologies. Methodology for unbiased estimation from samples of selectively verified patients. Invest Radiol . 1985;20:751–756.
    1. Bates AS, Margolis PA, Evans AT. Verification bias in pediatric studies evaluating diagnostic tests. J Pediatr . 1993;122:585–590.
    1. Philbrick JT, Horwitz RI, Feinstein AR. Methodologic problems of excerise testing for coronary artery disease: groups, analysis and bias. Am J Cardiol . 1980;46:807–812.
    1. Grimes DA. Diagnostic dilation and curettage: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1982;142:1–6.
    1. Silverberg SG. Problems in the differential diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. Mod Pathol . 2000;13:309–327.
    1. Svirsky R, Smorgick N, Rozowski U, Sagiv R, Feingold M, Halperin R, et al. Can we rely on blind endometrial biopsy for detection of focal intrauterine pathology? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:115.
    1. Hamilton JA, Larson AJ, Lower AM, Hasnain S, Grudzinskas JG. Routine use of saline hysterosonography in 500 consecutive, unselected, infertile women. Hum Reprod . 1998;13:2463–2473.
    1. Shokeir T, Abdelshaheed M. Sonohysterography as a first-line evaluation for uterine abnormalities in women with recurrent failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril . 2009;91 (Suppl.):1321–1322.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren