The added value of three‑dimensional ultrasonography in uterine pathology

Grigore,Mihaela; Popovici,Razvan; Himiniuc,Loredana Maria; Scripcariu,Ioana Sadiye; Toma,Bogdan Florin; Grigore,Ana Maria; Oancea,Mihaela; Micu,Romeo

doi:10.3892/etm.2021.10696

The added value of three‑dimensional ultrasonography in uterine pathology

Authors:
- Mihaela Grigore
- Razvan Popovici
- Loredana Maria Himiniuc
- Ioana Sadiye Scripcariu
- Bogdan Florin Toma
- Ana Maria Grigore
- Mihaela Oancea
- Romeo Micu
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ‘Grigore T. Popa’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115 Iasi, Romania, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ‘Iuliu Hatieganu’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj‑Napoca, Romania
Published online on: September 6, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2021.10696
Article Number: 1261

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The rapid development achieved over the last decades in volume rendering of ultrasound data, known as three‑dimensional (3D) ultrasound technique, leads to new opportunities for refining the diagnosis in many gynaecologic conditions. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the advantages of 3D ultrasound over two‑dimensional (2D) ultrasound in uterine pathology and to establish the optimal time point during the menstrual cycle to perform 3D ultrasound examination in order to achieve the maximum of useful information. A cross‑sectional study on 200 patients who underwent gynaecologic 2D and 3D ultrasound examinations was performed. The addition of 3D examination to 2D ultrasound in uterine pathology provided the most useful information concerning: Congenital uterine anomalies, intrauterine devices (IUDs), adenomyosis, and submucous myomas. The findings showed that the 3D ultrasound scan is a useful tool in gynaecology, especially in cases with congenital uterine anomalies, myoma, and IUD. Although initially it was used for research purposes only, recent findings suggest its usefulness in routine ultrasound scan and the possibility of witnessing its introduction as a recommended examination procedure in the foreseeable future. Further research should be conducted in order to establish the sensitivity of 3D ultrasound in the detection of minor endometrial conditions, by correlating the imaging findings with the hysteroscopic results.

View Figures

View References

1	Merz E: Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound in gynecological diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 14:81–86. 1999.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Turcan N, Bohiltea RE, Ionita-Radu F, Furtunescu F, Navolan D, Berceanu C, Nemescu D and Cirstoiu MM: Unfavorable influence of prematurity on the neonatal prognostic of small for gestational age fetuses. Exp Ther Med. 20:2415–2422. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Bohiltea R, Furtunescu F, Turcan N, Navolan D, Ducu I and Cirstoiu M: Prematurity and intrauterine growth restriction: Comparative analysis of incidence and short-term complication. In: Proceedings of SOGR 2018. The 17 National Congress of the Romanian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018:708–712. 2019.
4	Abuhamad AZ, Singleton S, Zhao Y and Bocca S: The Z technique: An easy approach to the display of the mid-coronal plane of the uterus in volume sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 25:607–612. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Bermejo C, Martínez-Ten P, Ruíz-López L, Estévez M and Gil MM: Classification of uterine anomalies by 3-dimensional ultrasonography using ESHRE/ESGE criteria: Interobserver variability. Reprod Sci. 25:740–747. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, Jauniaux E, Natucci M and Campbell S: Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: A comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 5:233–237. 1995.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L and Jurkovic D: Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 21:578–582. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Moini A, Mohammadi S, Hosseini R, Eslami B and Ahmadi F: Accuracy of 3-dimensional sonography for diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. J Ultrasound Med. 32:923–927. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Mohamed M, Momtaz MD, Alaa N, Ebrashy MD, Ayman A and Marzouk MD: Three-dimensional ultrasonography in the evaluation of the uterine cavity. MEFSJ. 12:41–46. 2007.
10	Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, Meriggiola MC, Gubbini G, Pilu G, Pelusi C and Pelusi G: Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 92:808–813. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Graupera B, Pascual MA, Hereter L, Browne JL, Úbeda B, Rodríguez I and 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. 46:616–622. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Bermejo C, Martinez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Perez Pedregosa JP, Barrón E, Labrador E and López LR: Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 35:593–601. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Hösli I, Holzgreve W and Tercanli S: Use of 3-dimensional ultrasound for assessment of intrauterine device position. Ultraschall Med. 22:75–80. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar : (In German).
14	Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD and Bromley B: Three-dimensional ultrasound detection of abnormally located intrauterine contraceptive devices which are a source of pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 34:110–115. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Kalmantis K, Daskalakis G, Lymberopoulos E, Stefanidis K, Papantoniou N and Antsaklis A: The role of three-dimensional imaging in the investigation of IUD malposition. Bratisl Lek Listy. 110:174–177. 2009.PubMed/NCBI
16	Moschos E and Twickler DM: Does the type of intrauterine device affect conspicuity on 2D and 3D ultrasound? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 196:1439–1443. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Shipp TD, Bromley B and Benacerraf BR: The width of the uterine cavity is narrower in patients with an embedded intrauterine device (IUD) compared to a normally positioned IUD. J Ultrasound Med. 29:1453–1456. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Salim R, Lee C, Davies A, Jolaoso B, Ofuasia E and Jurkovic D: A comparative study of three-dimensional saline infusion sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the classification of submucous fibroids. Hum Reprod. 20:253–257. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Lee C, Salim R, Ofili-Yebovi D, Yazbek J, Davies A and Jurkovic D: Reproducibility of the measurement of submucous fibroid protrusion into the uterine cavity using three-dimensional saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 28:837–841. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Mavrelos D, Naftalin J, Hoo W, Ben-Nagi J, Holland T and Jurkovic D: Preoperative assessment of submucous fibroids by three-dimensional saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 38:350–354. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sørensen JS, Ledertoug S and Olesen F: Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertility Steril. 76:588–594. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Exacoustos C, Brienza L, Di Giovanni A, Szabolcs B, Romanini ME, Zupi E and Arduini D: Adenomyosis: Three-dimensional sonographic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 37:471–479. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Naftalin J and Jurkovic D: The endometrial-myometrial junction: A fresh look at a busy crossing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 34:1–11. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
24	Timmerman D, Verguts J, Konstantinovic ML, Moerman P, van Schoubroeck D, Deprest J and van Huffel S: The pedicle artery sign based on sonography with color Doppler imaging can replace second-stage tests in women with abnormal vaginal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 22:166–171. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar