scholarly journals Diagnostic hysteroscopy and saline infusion sonography in the diagnosis of intrauterine abnormalities: an assessment of patient preference

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heleen van Dongen ◽  
Anne Timmermans ◽  
Cathrien E. Jacobi ◽  
Trudy Elskamp ◽  
Cor D. de Kroon ◽  
...  
2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 320-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Willem Jansen ◽  
Cornelis D. de Kroon ◽  
Heleen van Dongen ◽  
Carolien Grooters ◽  
Leoni Louwé ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veluppillai Vathanan ◽  
Nii Adjeidu Armar

Aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of saline hydrosonography (HSGM) (also known as saline infusion sonography (SIS)) against transvaginal ultrasound scan (TVS) and hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of uterine cavity lesions. Diagnostic hysteroscopy with biopsy is considered as the “gold standard” to diagnose intrauterine abnormalities. The introduction of HSGM has improved the diagnostic capability of ultrasound. It is important to establish the efficacy and safety of HSGM before it is widely recommended for use. This retrospective observational data was collected from all 223 patients who underwent TVS, HSGM, and hysteroscopy as part of their gynaecological investigations from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010 at Central Middlesex Hospital, London.Endometrial Polyps. TVS: sensitivity 60.53%, specificity 97.06%, positive predictive value (PPV) 95.83%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 68.75% and HSGM: sensitivity 95%, specificity 97.14%, PPV 97.44%, and NPV 94.44%.Submucous Leiomyoma. TVS: sensitivity 57.14%, specificity 93.48%, PPV 84.21%, and NPV 78.18% and HSGM: sensitivity 96.55%, specificity 100.00%, PPV 100.00%, and NPV 97.92%. Diagnostic efficacy of HSGM is superior to TVS for the diagnosis of endometrial polyps and submucous fibroids. HSGM should be considered as an intermediate investigation after TVS to assess intracavity pathology and to confirm the diagnosis; hysteroscopy should become a therapeutic intervention.


2020 ◽  
Vol 103 (6) ◽  
pp. 585-593

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) and saline infusion sonography (SIS) in use for the diagnosis of endometrial polyps and submucous myoma compared to hysteroscopy. Histopathology was considered as the gold standard for final diagnosis. Materials and Methods: The present retrospective study was conducted at Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand between January 2014 and December 2017. Medical records of 150 patients who attended for hysteroscopy and histopathological diagnosis were reviewed. The accuracy of TVS and SIS for the diagnosis of endometrial polyps and submucous myoma were determined. Results: Out of 150 enrolled cases, endometrial polyp was the most frequent hysteroscopic finding in participants of the present study (92/150). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of TVS, SIS, and hysteroscopy compared to pathologic reports for detection endometrial polyps were 71.7% versus 93.5% versus 97.8%, 38.5% versus 52.2% versus 68.2%, 80.5% versus 88.7% versus 92.8%, 27.8% versus 66.7% versus 88.2%, and 64.4% versus 85.2% versus 92.1%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of TVS, SIS, and hysteroscopy for detection of submucous myoma were 81.6% versus 92.1% versus 94.7%, 66.7% versus 86.9% versus 100%, 77.5% versus 92.1% versus 100%, 72.0% versus 86.9% versus 90.9%, and 75.4% versus 90.2% versus 96.6%, respectively. The kappa value from TVS, SIS, and hysteroscopy when the histopathologic reports were overall intrauterine abnormalities, endometrial polyps and submucous myoma were 0.45/0.43/0.72, 0.77/0.76/0.89, and 0.92/0.92/1.00, respectively. Conclusion: Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy, and kappa value of SIS for detecting endometrial polyps and submucous myoma were better than TVS. Keywords: Ultrasonography, Saline infusion sonography, Hysteroscopy, Accuracy


2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (41) ◽  
pp. 2498-2502
Author(s):  
Poornima Maravi ◽  
Vijay Verma ◽  
Lovely Kaushal ◽  
Abhjeet Patil ◽  
Chandraprakash Ahirwar

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document