S Rudra1, B S Duggal2, D Bharadwaj3. 1. Brig (Med), Western Command, Chandimandir, Command Hospital (SC), Pune-411 040. 2. Senior Advisor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), Command Hospital (SC), Pune-411 040. 3. Graded Specialist (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), Jhansi, (UP).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of saline infusion sonography to pick up uterine cavity lesions and compare it with the gold standard office hysteroscopy. METHODS: Study population consisted of women scheduled for office hysteroscopy for various indications. Uterine cavity of 208 women of the study group were evaluated first by saline infusion sonography and then by office hysteroscopy by two separate examiners. Findings were recorded separately for both procedures and compared. Pain rating was also noted after each procedure. RESULT: In eight patients either or both the procedures could not be performed for various reasons, hence were excluded from the analysis. With saline infusion sonography, pathological findings were identified in 93 (46.5%) patients and hysteroscopy detected lesions in 88 (44%) patients. For all findings combined sensitivity of saline infusion sonography was 90.9%, specificity 88.3%, positive predictive value 86.0% and negative predictive value 92.5% as compared to hysteroscopy. Former was less painful and easier to perform than the latter. CONCLUSION: The findings of saline infusion sonography and office hysteroscopy did not differ significantly. Thus saline infusion sonography is an excellent option for uterine cavity evaluation.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of saline infusion sonography to pick up uterine cavity lesions and compare it with the gold standard office hysteroscopy. METHODS: Study population consisted of women scheduled for office hysteroscopy for various indications. Uterine cavity of 208 women of the study group were evaluated first by saline infusion sonography and then by office hysteroscopy by two separate examiners. Findings were recorded separately for both procedures and compared. Pain rating was also noted after each procedure. RESULT: In eight patients either or both the procedures could not be performed for various reasons, hence were excluded from the analysis. With saline infusion sonography, pathological findings were identified in 93 (46.5%) patients and hysteroscopy detected lesions in 88 (44%) patients. For all findings combined sensitivity of saline infusion sonography was 90.9%, specificity 88.3%, positive predictive value 86.0% and negative predictive value 92.5% as compared to hysteroscopy. Former was less painful and easier to perform than the latter. CONCLUSION: The findings of saline infusion sonography and office hysteroscopy did not differ significantly. Thus saline infusion sonography is an excellent option for uterine cavity evaluation.
Authors: Lillian M Mihm; Valerie A Quick; Jonathan A Brumfield; Alfred F Connors; James J Finnerty Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Cornelis D de Kroon; Frank Willem Jansen; Leoni A Louwé; Sandra W M Dieben; Hans C van Houwelingen; J Baptist Trimbos Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 8.661