Literature DB >> 7736636

The role of endovaginal ultrasound in differentiating endometriomas from other ovarian cysts.

S Guerriero1, V Mais, S Ajossa, A M Paoletti, M Angiolucci, F Labate, G B Melis.   

Abstract

Endometriomas have a prevalence of 24% among all ovarian cysts. Various sonographic features have been proposed to identify endometriomas. Although the visualization of ovarian masses with low-level internal echoes is suggestive for the endometriotic origin of the cyst, no data are yet available on the specificity of endovaginal ultrasonography in differentiating endometriomas from other ovarian masses. To address this issue, the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values of endovaginal ultrasonography in comparison with pathology were calculated for each visualized cyst. The study population (n = 251) consisted of all premenopausal non pregnant women submitted to laparotomy or laparoscopy between May 1991 and March 1993 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University of Cagliari. Within one week before surgery, all patients underwent endovaginal ultrasonography and 93 ovarian cysts were visualized. After the scan, the physician gave prospective impressions as to the presence of endometriomas using the visualization of round-shaped homogeneous hypoechoic "tissue" of low-level echoes within the ovary as characteristic ultrasonographic finding. Ultrasonographic impression was compared with histopathological diagnosis. Out of 93 adnexal masses detected by ultrasound, 31 were suspected to be endometriomas and the diagnosis was confirmed in 24. The sensitivity and the specificity of endovaginal ultrasonography in differentiating endometriomas from other ovarian cysts were 83% and 89%, respectively. This specificity (89%) is comparable with that obtainable with magnetic resonance imaging (91%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7736636

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0390-6663            Impact factor:   0.146


  6 in total

Review 1.  Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis.

Authors:  Vicki Nisenblat; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Cindy Farquhar; Neil Johnson; M Louise Hull
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-26

2.  Surgery and Endometriosis.

Authors:  Austin Zanelotti; Alan H Decherney
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.190

3.  Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?

Authors:  C Van Holsbeke; B Van Calster; S Guerriero; L Savelli; F Leone; D Fischerova; A Czekierdowski; R Fruscio; J Veldman; G Van de Putte; A C Testa; T Bourne; L Valentin; D Timmerman
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2009

Review 4.  Endometriosis: advances and controversies in classification, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment.

Authors:  Edgardo Rolla
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-04-23

5.  Evaluation of the usefulness of the MRI jelly method for diagnosing complete cul-de-sac obliteration.

Authors:  Iwaho Kikuchi; Ryohei Kuwatsuru; Kana Yamazaki; Jun Kumakiri; Yoichi Aoki; Satoru Takeda
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Ultrasonography in the Differentiation of Endometriomas from Hemorrhagic Ovarian Cysts: The Role of Texture Analysis.

Authors:  Roxana-Adelina Ștefan; Paul-Andrei Ștefan; Carmen Mihaela Mihu; Csaba Csutak; Carmen Stanca Melincovici; Carmen Bianca Crivii; Andrei Mihai Maluțan; Liviu Hîțu; Andrei Lebovici
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-06-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.