Literature DB >> 27433211

Comparison of two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound in the visualisation of intrauterine devices.

N K Kerr1, R Dunham1, S Wolstenhulme2, J Wilson3.   

Abstract

The aims of the study were to evaluate whether three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (3D TV US) is superior to two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (2D TV US) at visualising intrauterine devices and determining their position. This prospective study included 52 participants with an intrauterine device fitted, who underwent 2D TV US and 3D TV US. 2D TV US and 3D-reconstructed coronal images were reviewed by two gynaecological radiologists to assess ease of visualisation and position of the intrauterine devices. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank, McNemar and Chi-squared tests. The inter-observer agreement was measured using Cohen's Kappa. Intrauterine device visualisation scores were significantly higher with 2D TV US compared with 3D TV US (Radiologist 1 p = <0.001, Radiologist 2 p = 0.007). A significant number of T-arms appeared to perforate into the adjacent myometrium on the 3D-reconstructed coronal image, but were normal on the 2D images (Radiologist 1 p = <0.001, Radiologist 2 p = 0.008). Radiologist 1 found 19 perforated T-arms on 3D TV US compared with four on 2D TV US. Radiologist 2 found 13 perforated T-arms on 3D TV US compared with five on 2D TV US. Both radiologists agreed on the positions of the intrauterine devices substantially with 3D TV US (Kappa = 0.69) and moderately with 2D TV US (Kappa = 0.55). The 3D TV US did not visualise an intrauterine device better than 2D TV US. The 3D-reconstructed coronal image of the uterus can reliably display cases of T-arm perforation into the adjacent myometrium, which could be missed on 2D TV US images. The 3D TV US should be used in addition to 2D TV US in all cases where an intrauterine device is under evaluation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Three-dimensional ultrasound; diagnostic technology; evaluation study; gynaecology; intrauterine device

Year:  2014        PMID: 27433211      PMCID: PMC4760533          DOI: 10.1177/1742271X14532082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound        ISSN: 1742-271X


  17 in total

1.  The shadow of the intrauterine device.

Authors:  Dan Vadim Valsky; Sarah M Cohen; Drorith Hochner-Celnikier; Achinoam Lev-Sagie; Simcha Yagel
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 2.  FFPRHC Guidance (April 2004). The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in contraception and reproductive health.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care       Date:  2004-04

3.  The Z technique: an easy approach to the display of the mid-coronal plane of the uterus in volume sonography.

Authors:  Alfred Z Abuhamad; Stephanie Singleton; Yueqin Zhao; Silvina Bocca
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.153

4.  The width of the uterine cavity is narrower in patients with an embedded intrauterine device (IUD) compared to a normally positioned IUD.

Authors:  Thomas D Shipp; Bryann Bromley; Beryl R Benacerraf
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.153

5.  Sonographic determination of the position of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device.

Authors:  D Van Schoubroeck; T Van Den Bosch; P Mortelman; D Timmerman
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 7.299

6.  Two cases of uterine septum with intrauterine device.

Authors:  E Dikensoy; I Kutlar; A Gocmen; C R Graves
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Does the type of intrauterine device affect conspicuity on 2D and 3D ultrasound?

Authors:  Elysia Moschos; Diane M Twickler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Transuterine migration as a complication of intrauterine contraceptive devices: six case reports.

Authors:  Y A Tunçay; E Tunçay; K Güzin; D Oztürk; C Omurcan; N Yücel
Journal:  Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.848

9.  FFPRHC Guidance (January 2004). The copper intrauterine device as long-term contraception.

Authors:  Gillian Penney; Susan Brechin; Alison de Souza; Urszula Bankowska; Toni Belfield; Maggie Gormley; Mary Olliver; Naomi Hampton; Ruth Howlett-Shipley; Sarah Hughes; Noel Mack; Paul O'Brien; Sam Rowlands; Karen Trewinnard
Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care       Date:  2004-01

10.  The Femilis LNG-IUS: contraceptive performance-an interim analysis.

Authors:  Dirk Wildemeersch; Dirk Janssens; Amaury Andrade
Journal:  Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.848

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Femilis(®) 60 Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System-A Review of 10 Years of Clinical Experience.

Authors:  Dirk Wildemeersch; Amaury Andrade; Norman Goldstuck
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Reprod Health       Date:  2016-08-09
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.