OBJECTIVE(S): To assess the association between the ultrasonographic presence of adenomyosis and recurrent miscarriage (RM). STUDY DESIGN: A prospective matched case-control study was conducted between March 2018 and December 2018 at Ankara University Hospital. A total of 132 women were assessed with transvaginal ultrasonography for the presence of adenomyosis markers. The case group consisted of 66 women with RM. The control group consisted of 66 women without RM or any other gynaecologic conditions. The rates of ultrasonographic adenomyosis, using strict criteria, were compared between the groups. Other etiologic factors for RM were described in the case group. The primary outcome was the ultrasonographic diagnosis of adenomyosis. RESULTS: The ultrasonographic diagnosis of adenomyosis, using diagnostic criteria of at least two markers, was significantly higher in the RM group when compared to the control group (19.7% vs. 6.1%, respectively; P = 0.035). The most common ultrasonographic finding in the RM group was heterogeneous myometrium (18.2%). In the RM group, there was at least one possible risk factor (including adenomyosis) for RM in 42 women (63.6%). The prevalence of adenomyosis in nine women with unexplained RM was 13.6%. CONCLUSION(S): The prevalence of adenomyosis was significantly increased in women with RM compared to healthy controls. Adenomyosis and uterine anomalies were the most common risk factors associated with RM.
OBJECTIVE(S): To assess the association between the ultrasonographic presence of adenomyosis and recurrent miscarriage (RM). STUDY DESIGN: A prospective matched case-control study was conducted between March 2018 and December 2018 at Ankara University Hospital. A total of 132 women were assessed with transvaginal ultrasonography for the presence of adenomyosis markers. The case group consisted of 66 women with RM. The control group consisted of 66 women without RM or any other gynaecologic conditions. The rates of ultrasonographic adenomyosis, using strict criteria, were compared between the groups. Other etiologic factors for RM were described in the case group. The primary outcome was the ultrasonographic diagnosis of adenomyosis. RESULTS: The ultrasonographic diagnosis of adenomyosis, using diagnostic criteria of at least two markers, was significantly higher in the RM group when compared to the control group (19.7% vs. 6.1%, respectively; P = 0.035). The most common ultrasonographic finding in the RM group was heterogeneous myometrium (18.2%). In the RM group, there was at least one possible risk factor (including adenomyosis) for RM in 42 women (63.6%). The prevalence of adenomyosis in nine women with unexplained RM was 13.6%. CONCLUSION(S): The prevalence of adenomyosis was significantly increased in women with RM compared to healthy controls. Adenomyosis and uterine anomalies were the most common risk factors associated with RM.