OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively the role of endovaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis and to identify predictive characteristics. SETTING: In Vitro Fertilisation Unit, Hammersmith Hospital. SUBJECTS: Fifty-six women with menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea. DESIGN: Endovaginal sonography was performed and uterine body morphometry and myometrial echogenicity were assessed. The sonographic suspicion of adenomyosis was scored high or low depending on the degree of uterine enlargement, uterine asymmetry not due to fibroids and heterogenicity of myometrial echoes. The sonographic diagnosis was compared either with the histological findings after hysterectomy (n = 34) or to the appearances on magnetic resonance imaging (n = 22). RESULTS: Adenomyosis was diagnosed in 28 patients: 15 by histology and 13 by magnetic resonance imaging. Endovaginal ultrasound demonstrated a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 50%, a positive predictive value of 86%, and a negative predictive value of 77%. Uterine morphometry alone did not predict adenomyosis: although the mean length of the longitudinal, anteroposterior and transverse axis was larger in uteri with, compared with those without, adenomyosis, this did not reach statistical significance. The uterine asymmetry ratio was 1.43 (SD 0.6) and 1.34 (SD 0.4) (P = 0.26) in uteri with and without adenomyosis, respectively, but in the presence of adenomyosis the mean posterior wall was significantly thicker than the mean anterior wall: 25.6 (SD 6.6) mm compared with 21.8 (SD 5.0) mm, P = 0.02. Therefore, adenomyosis was best predicted on the basis of ill-defined myometrial heterogeneity. However, leiomyomas and various echogenic shadows and artefacts often complicate subjective assessment of the myometrial echogenicity. CONCLUSION: Endovaginal sonography in symptomatic patients can be a sensitive but not a specific procedure for the diagnosis of adenomyosis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively the role of endovaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis and to identify predictive characteristics. SETTING: In Vitro Fertilisation Unit, Hammersmith Hospital. SUBJECTS: Fifty-six women with menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea. DESIGN: Endovaginal sonography was performed and uterine body morphometry and myometrial echogenicity were assessed. The sonographic suspicion of adenomyosis was scored high or low depending on the degree of uterine enlargement, uterine asymmetry not due to fibroids and heterogenicity of myometrial echoes. The sonographic diagnosis was compared either with the histological findings after hysterectomy (n = 34) or to the appearances on magnetic resonance imaging (n = 22). RESULTS:Adenomyosis was diagnosed in 28 patients: 15 by histology and 13 by magnetic resonance imaging. Endovaginal ultrasound demonstrated a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 50%, a positive predictive value of 86%, and a negative predictive value of 77%. Uterine morphometry alone did not predict adenomyosis: although the mean length of the longitudinal, anteroposterior and transverse axis was larger in uteri with, compared with those without, adenomyosis, this did not reach statistical significance. The uterine asymmetry ratio was 1.43 (SD 0.6) and 1.34 (SD 0.4) (P = 0.26) in uteri with and without adenomyosis, respectively, but in the presence of adenomyosis the mean posterior wall was significantly thicker than the mean anterior wall: 25.6 (SD 6.6) mm compared with 21.8 (SD 5.0) mm, P = 0.02. Therefore, adenomyosis was best predicted on the basis of ill-defined myometrial heterogeneity. However, leiomyomas and various echogenic shadows and artefacts often complicate subjective assessment of the myometrial echogenicity. CONCLUSION: Endovaginal sonography in symptomatic patients can be a sensitive but not a specific procedure for the diagnosis of adenomyosis.
Authors: J M Puente; A Fabris; J Patel; A Patel; M Cerrillo; A Requena; J A Garcia-Velasco Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 5.211
Authors: Vered H Eisenberg; Nissim Arbib; Eyal Schiff; Motti Goldenberg; Daniel S Seidman; David Soriano Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 3.411