Diagnostic Performance of Two-Dimensional Ultrasound, Two-Dimensional Sonohysterography and Three-Dimensional Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Septate Uterus-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Juan Luis Alcázar, Isabel Carriles, María Belén Cajas, Susana Costa, Sofia Fabra, Maria Cabrero, Elena Castro, Aida Tomaizeh, María Victoria Laza, Alba Monroy, Irene Martinez, Maria Isabel Aguilar, Elena Hernani, Cristina Castellet, Agustin Oliva, María Ángela Pascual, Stefano Guerriero, Juan Luis Alcázar, Isabel Carriles, María Belén Cajas, Susana Costa, Sofia Fabra, Maria Cabrero, Elena Castro, Aida Tomaizeh, María Victoria Laza, Alba Monroy, Irene Martinez, Maria Isabel Aguilar, Elena Hernani, Cristina Castellet, Agustin Oliva, María Ángela Pascual, Stefano Guerriero

Abstract

Background: The septate uterus is the most common congenital uterine anomaly, and hysteroscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing it. The goal of this meta-analysis is to perform a pooled analysis of the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography, two-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography, three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound, and three-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography for the diagnosis of the septate uterus.

Methods: Studies published between 1990 and 2022 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. From 897 citations, we selected eighteen studies to include in this meta-analysis.

Results: The mean prevalence of uterine septum in this meta-analysis was 27.8%. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 83% and 99% for two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography (ten studies), 94% and 100% for two-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography (eight studies), and 98% and 100% for three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (seven articles), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography was only described in two studies, and we did not calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity for this method.

Conclusion: Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound has the best performance capacity for the diagnosis of the septate uterus.

Keywords: mullerian anomalies; septate uterus; sonohysterography; ultrasound.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart showing the study selection process, indicating the titles found in each database, the exclusion process, and the final number of articles included in the meta-analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity for all studies concerning the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography for uterine septum detection [13,22,23,24,26,28,32,34,36,37].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity for all studies concerning the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional sonohysterography for uterine septum detection [13,23,24,27,28,29,31,36].
Figure 4
Figure 4
Summary ROC curve for the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography to detect uterine septum, showing the sensitivity and specificity for each study and pooled estimation. The dashed line around the summary point estimate (red diamond) represents the 95% confidence region. The dotted line showing the 95% prediction contour corresponds to the predicted performance taking into account all individual studies.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Summary ROC curve for the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional sonohysterography to detect uterine septum, showing the sensitivity and specificity for each study and pooled estimation. The dashed line around the summary point estimate (red diamond) represents the 95% confidence region. The dotted line showing the 95% prediction contour corresponds to the predicted performance taking into account all individual studies.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Fagan nomogram for two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. It can be observed how the test changes the pre-test probability depending on a positive or negative result.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Fagan nomogram for two-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography. It can be observed how the test changes the pre-test probability depending on a positive or negative result.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Publication bias regarding two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Publication bias regarding two-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity for all studies concerning the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography for uterine septum detection [13,24,25,30,34,35,38].
Figure 11
Figure 11
Summary ROC curve for the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography to detect uterine septum, showing the sensitivity and specificity for each study and pooled estimation. The dashed line around the summary point estimate (red diamond) represents the 95% confidence region. The dotted line showing the 95% prediction contour corresponds to the predicted performance taking into account all individual studies.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Fagan nomogram for three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. It can be observed how the test changes the pre-test probability depending on a positive or negative result.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Publication bias regarding three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography.

References

    1. Grimbizis G.F., Campo R. Congenital Malformations of the Female Genital Tract: The Need for a New Classification System. Fertil. Steril. 2010;94:401–407. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.030.
    1. Saravelos S.H., Cocksedge K.A., Li T.C. Prevalence and Diagnosis of Congenital Uterine Anomalies in Women with Reproductive Failure: A Critical Appraisal. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2008;14:415–429. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmn018.
    1. Chan Y.Y., Jayaprakasan K., Zamora J., Thornton J.G., Raine-Fenning N., Coomarasamy A. The Prevalence of Congenital Uterine Anomalies in Unselected and High-Risk Populations: A Systematic Review. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2011;17:761–771. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr028.
    1. Grimbizis G.F., Camus M., Tarlatzis B.C., Bontis J.N., Devroey P. Clinical Implications of Uterine Malformations and Hysteroscopic Treatment Results. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2001;7:161–174. doi: 10.1093/humupd/7.2.161.
    1. Tomaževič T., Ban-Frangež H., Ribič-Pucelj M., Premru-Sršen T., Verdenik I. Small Uterine Septum Is an Important Risk Variable for Preterm Birth. Eur. J. Obstet Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2007;135:154–157. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.12.001.
    1. Rikken J.F.W., Leeuwis-Fedorovich N.E., Letteboer S., Emanuel M.H., Limpens J., van der Veen F., Goddijn M., van Wely M. The Pathophysiology of the Septate Uterus: A Systematic Review. BJOG. 2019;126:1192–1199. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15798.
    1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Uterine Septum: A Guideline. Fertil. Steril. 2016;106:530–540. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.014.
    1. Grimbizis G.F., Gordts S., di Spiezio Sardo A., Brucker S., de Angelis C., Gergolet M., Li T.C., Tanos V., Brölmann H., Gianaroli L., et al. The ESHRE/ESGE Consensus on the Classification of Female Genital Tract Congenital Anomalies. Hum. Reprod. 2013;28:2032–2044. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det098.
    1. Homer H.A., Li T.C., Cooke I.D. The Septate Uterus: A Review of Management and Reproductive Outcome. Fertil. Steril. 2000;73:1–14. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00480-X.
    1. Valle R.F., Ekpo G.E. Hysteroscopic Metroplasty for the Septate Uterus: Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:22–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.09.010.
    1. Rikken J.F.W., Kowalik C.R., Emanuel M.H., Bongers M.Y., Spinder T., Jansen F.W., Mulders A.G.M.G.J., Padmehr R., Clark T.J., van Vliet H.A., et al. Septum Resection versus Expectant Management in Women with a Septate Uterus: An International Multicentre Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial. Hum. Reprod. 2021;36:1260–1267. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deab037.
    1. Carrera M., Pérez Millan F., Alcázar J.L., Alonso L., Caballero M., Carugno J., Dominguez J.A., Moratalla E. Effect of Hysteroscopic Metroplasty on Reproductive Outcomes in Women with Septate Uterus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022;29:465–475. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.10.001.
    1. Ludwin A., Pityński K., Ludwin I., Banas T., Knafel A. Two- and Three-Dimensional Ultrasonography and Sonohysterography versus Hysteroscopy with Laparoscopy in the Differential Diagnosis of Septate, Bicornuate, and Arcuate Uteri. J. Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:90–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.09.011.
    1. Graupera B., Pascual M.A., Hereter L., Browne J.L., Úbeda B., Rodríguez I., Pedrero C. Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Ultrasound Compared with Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnosis of Müllerian Duct Anomalies Using ESHRE-ESGE Consensus on the Classification of Congenital Anomalies of the Female Genital Tract. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:616–622. doi: 10.1002/uog.14825.
    1. Bermejo C., Martínez Ten P., Cantarero R., Diaz D., Pérez Pedregosa J., Barrón E., Labrador E., Ruiz López L. Three-Dimensional Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Müllerian Duct Anomalies and Concordance with Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:593–601. doi: 10.1002/uog.7551.
    1. Berger A., Batzer F., Lev-Toaff A., Berry-Roberts C. Diagnostic Imaging Modalities for Müllerian Anomalies: The Case for a New Gold Standard. J. Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:335–345. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.10.014.
    1. Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E.A., Brennan S.E., et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:105906.
    1. Sotiriadis A., Papatheodorou S.I., Martins W.P. Synthesizing Evidence from Diagnostic Accuracy TEsts: The SEDATE Guideline. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47:386–395. doi: 10.1002/uog.15762.
    1. Whiting P.F., Rutjes A.W.S., Westwood M.E., Mallett S., Deeks J.J., Reitsma J.B., Leeflang M.M.G., Sterne J.A.C., Bossuyt P.M.M. QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011;155:529–536. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.
    1. Higgins J.P.T., Thompson S.G., Deeks J.J., Altman D.G. Measuring Inconsistency in Meta-Analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    1. Deeks J.J., Macaskill P., Irwig L. The Performance of Tests of Publication Bias and Other Sample Size Effects in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Was Assessed. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2005;58:882–893. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016.
    1. Narayan R., Goswamy R.K. Transvaginal Sonography of the Uterine Cavity with Hysteroscopic Correlation in the Investigation of Infertility. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1993;3:129–133. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1993.03020129.x.
    1. Romano F., Cicinelli E., Anastasio P.S., Epifani S., Fanelli F., Galantino P. Sonohysterography versus Hysteroscopy for Diagnosing Endouterine Abnormalities in Fertile Women. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 1994;45:253–260. doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(94)90251-8.
    1. Kupesic S., Kurjak A. Septate Uterus: Detection and Prediction of Obstetrical Complications by Different Forms of Ultrasonography. J. Ultrasound Med. 1998;17:631–636. doi: 10.7863/jum.1998.17.10.631.
    1. Radoncic E., Funduk-Kurjak B. Three-Dimensional Ultrasound for Routine Check-Up in In Vitro Fertilization Patients. Croat Med. J. 2000;41:262–265.
    1. Loverro G., Nappi L., Vicino M., Carriero C., Vimercati A., Selvaggi L. Uterine Cavity Assessment in Infertile Women: Comparison of Transvaginal Sonography and Hysteroscopy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2001;100:67–71. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(01)00434-1.
    1. Alborzi S., Dehbashi S., Khodaee R. Sonohysterosalpingographic Screening for Infertile Patients. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2003;82:57–62. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00417-4.
    1. Menada Valenzano M., Mistrangelo E., Lijoi D., Fortunato T., Lantieri P.B., Risso D., Costantini S., Ragni N. Transvaginal Sonohysterographic Evaluation of Uterine Malformations. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2006;124:246–249. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.06.041.
    1. de Feuce C., Porfiri L.M., Savelli S., Alfano G., Pace S., Manganaro L., Vesteri A.R., Drudi F.M. Infertility in Women: Combined Sonohysterography and Hysterosalpingography in the Evaluation of the Uterine Cavity. Ultraschall der Med. 2009;30:52–57. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1027728.
    1. Ghi T., Casadio P., Kuleva M., Perrone A.M., Savelli L., Giunchi S., Meriggiola M.C., Gubbini G., Pilu G., Pelusi C., et al. Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Classification of Congenital Uterine Anomalies. Fertil. Steril. 2009;92:808–813. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.086.
    1. Ludwin A., Ludwin I., Banas T., Knafel A., Miedzyblocki M., Basta A. Diagnostic Accuracy of Sonohysterography, Hysterosalpingography and Diagnostic Hysteroscopy in Diagnosis of Arcuate, Septate and Bicornuate Uterus. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2011;37:178–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01304.x.
    1. Niknejadi M., Haghighi H., Ahmadi F., Niknejad F., Chehrazi M., Vosough A., Moenian D. Diagnostic Accuracy of Transvaginal Sonography in the Detection of Uterine Abnormalities in Infertile Women. Iran. J. Radiol. 2012;9:139–144. doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.8063.
    1. Ahmadi F., Rashidy Z., Sc B., Haghighi H., Akhoond M., Niknejadi M., Hemat M., Candidate P.D. Uterine Cavity Assessment in Infertile Women: Sensitivity and Specificity of Three-Dimensional Hysterosonography versus Hysteroscopy. Iran. J. Reprod. Med. 2013;11:977.
    1. Niknejadi M., Akhbari F., Niknejad F., Khalili G., Shiva M. Comparison of Two Dimensional and Live Three Dimensional Ultrasounds for the Diagnosis of Septated Uterus. Iran J. Reprod. Med. 2014;12:547–554.
    1. Abo Dewan K.A.A., Hefeda M.M., Elkholy D.G.E. Septate or Bicornuate Uterus: Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Trans-Vaginal Ultrasonography and Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Egypt. J. Radiol. Nucl. Med. 2014;45:987–995. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrnm.2014.04.001.
    1. Reda A., Hamid A.S.A., Mostafa R., Refaei E. Comparison between Findings of Saline Infusion Sonohysterography and Office Hysteroscopy in Patients with Recurrent Implantation Failure. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 2016;9:236–240. doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.197661.
    1. Shiva M., Ahmadi F., Arabipoor A., Oromiehchi M., Chehrazi M. Accuracy of Two-Dimensional Transvaginal Sonography and Office Hysteroscopy for Detection of Uterine Abnormalities in Patients with Repeated Implantation Failures or Recurrent Pregnancy Loss. Int. J. Fertil. Steril. 2018;11:287–292.
    1. Kougioumtsidou A., Mikos T., Grimbizis G.F., Karavida A., Theodoridis T.D., Sotiriadis A., Tarlatzis B.C., Athanasiadis A.P. Three-Dimensional Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and the Classification of Congenital Uterine Anomalies Using the ESHRE/ESGE Classification: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2019;299:779–789. doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05050-x.
    1. la Sala G.B., Blasi I., Gallinelli A., Debbi C., Lopopolo G., Vinci V., Villani M.T., Iannotti F. Diagnostic Accuracy of Sonohysterography and Transvaginal Sonography as Compared with Hysteroscopy and Endometrial Biopsy: A Prospective Study. Minerva Ginecol. 2011;63:421–427.
    1. Ludwin A., Martins W.P., Nastri C.O., Ludwin I., Coelho Neto M.A., Leitão V.M., Acién M., Alcazar J.L., Benacerraf B., Condous G., et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): Better Criteria for Distinguishing between Normal/Arcuate and Septate Uterus? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018;51:101–109. doi: 10.1002/uog.18923.
    1. Knez J., Saridogan E., van den Bosch T., Mavrelos D., Ambler G., Jurkovic D. ESHRE/ESGE Female Genital Tract Anomalies Classification System-the Potential Impact of Discarding Arcuate Uterus on Clinical Practice. Hum. Reprod. 2018;33:600–606. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey043.
    1. Ludwin A., Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM Classifications of Müllerian Duct Anomalies in Everyday Practice. Hum. Reprod. 2015;30:569–580. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu344.
    1. di Spiezio Sardo A., Campo R., Gordts S., Spinelli M., Cosimato C., Tanos V., Brucker S., Li T.C., Gergolet M., de Angelis C., et al. The Comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE Classification of Female Genital Tract Congenital Anomalies: A Systematic Review of Cases Not Classified by the AFS System. Hum. Reprod. 2015;30:1046–1058. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev061.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere