Advertisement

Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis and the classification of congenital uterine anomalies using the ESHRE/ESGE classification: a diagnostic accuracy study

  • Anna KougioumtsidouEmail author
  • Themistoklis Mikos
  • Grigoris F. Grimbizis
  • Aikaterini Karavida
  • Theodoros D. Theodoridis
  • Alexandros Sotiriadis
  • Basil C. Tarlatzis
  • Apostolos P. Athanasiadis
General Gynecology
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Study objective

To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography (3D US) compared to hysteroscopy/laparoscopy, in the investigation of uterine congenital anomalies using the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies.

Design

Prospective blind, comparative, cohort study.

Setting

University Tertiary Hospital and affiliated private Hospital.

Patients and methods

Sixty-two women consecutively referred with a suspected diagnosis of uterine congenital anomalies. The ESHRE/ESGE classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract was used for the description of abnormal findings.

Interventions

All patients underwent (1) 3D US and (2) hysteroscopy with laparoscopy to establish the final diagnosis.

Results

Concordance between 3D US and hysteroscopy with laparoscopy about the type and the classification of uterine anomaly was verified in 61 cases, including all those with septate uterus, dysmorphic uterus, bicorporeal, hemi-uterus or unicorporeal, and aplastic uterus and one out of two with normal uterus. For the diagnosis of septate uteri, which was the most common anomaly, the sensitivity of 3D US was 100%, the specificity was 92.3%, the PPV was 98% and the NPV was 100%, with kappa index 0.950. For bicorporeal, dysmorphic uterus, hemi-uteri or unicorporeal and aplastic uterus the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were all 100% with K = 1.00. Overall, 3D US showed perfect diagnostic accuracy (Kappa index = 0.945) in the detection of congenital uterine anomalies.

Conclusion

3D US appears to be a very accurate method for the diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies.

Keywords

Three-dimensional ultrasound Congenital anomalies of the female genital tract Hysteroscopy Laparoscopy ESHRE/ESGE classification system 

Notes

Authors’ contribution

AK: Data collection, Manuscript writing, data analysis. TM: Manuscript writing—review and editing, protocol development. GFG: Protocol development, data collection, conceptualization, investigation, project administration, supervision. AK: Data collection, investigation. TDT: Data collection, investigation. AS: Protocol development, supervision. BCT: Supervision. APA: Protocol development, data collection, conceptualization, investigation, project administration, supervision, validation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

404_2019_5050_MOESM1_ESM.docx (139 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 138 kb)
404_2019_5050_MOESM2_ESM.docx (91 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 91 kb)
404_2019_5050_MOESM3_ESM.docx (132 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 132 kb)
404_2019_5050_MOESM4_ESM.docx (176 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 175 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Grimbizis GF, Campo R (2010) Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: the need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril 94:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li T-C (2008) Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 14:415–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A (2011) The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 17:761–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buttram VC, Gibbons WE (1979) Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 32:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The American Fertility Society (1988) The AFS classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49:944–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Acien P, Acien M, Sanchez-Ferrer M (2004) Complex malformations of the female genital tract: new types and revision of classification. Hum Reprod 19:2377–2384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oppelt P, Renner SP, Brucker S, Strissel PL, Strick R, Oppelt PG, Doerr HG, Schott GE, Hucke J, Wallwiener D, Beckmann MW (2005) The VCUAM (vagina cervix uterus adnex associated malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril 84:1493–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grimbizis GF, Gordts G, Di Spiezio SA, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li T-C, Tanos V, Brölmann H, Gianaroli L, Campo R (2013) The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital malformations. Hum Reprod 28:2032–2044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grimbizis GF, Gordts G, Di Spiezio SA, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li T-C, Tanos V, Brölmann H, Gianaroli L, Campo R (2013) The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital malformations. Gynecol Surg 10:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, Gordts S, Exacoustos C, Van Schoubroeck D, Bermejo C, Amso NN, Nargund G, Timmermann D, Athanasiadis A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li TC, Tanos V, Tarlatzis B, Farquharson R, Gianaroli L, Campo R (2016) The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Gynecol Surg 13:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Byrne J, Nussbaum-Blask A, Taylor WS, Rubin A, Hill M, O’Donnel R, Shulman S (2000) Prevalence of Mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet 94:9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Troiano RN, McCarthy SM (2004) Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nicolini U, Bellotti M, Bonazzi B, Zamberletti D, Candiani GB (1987) Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations? Fertil Steril 47:89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L, Jurkovic D, Letterie GS, Haggerty M, Lindee G (1995) A comparison of pelvic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging as diagnostic studies for mullerian tract abnormalities. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 40:34–38Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, Jauniaux E, Natucci M, Campbell S (1995) Three-dimensional ultra- sound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 5:233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, Meriggiola MC, Gubbini G, Pilu G, Pelusi C, Pelusi G (2009) Accuracy of three-dimensional ultra- sound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 92:808–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faivre E, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, Gervaise A, Frydman R, Levaillant JM (2012) Accuracy of three- dimensional ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uterus compared with office hysteroscopy and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19(1):101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ludwin A, Pitynski K, Ludwin I, Banas T, Knafel A (2013) Two- and three- dimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20(1):90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graupera B, Pascual MA, Hereter L, Browne JL, Úbeda B, Rodriguez I, Pedrero C (2015) Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies using ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46(5):616–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L, Jurkovic D (2003) Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21(6):578–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saravelos SH, Li TC (2015) Intra- and inter-observer variability of uterine measurements with three-dimensional ultrasound and implications for clinical practice. Reprod Biomed Online 31(4):557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Kudla M, Kottner J (2015) Reliability of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy and American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification systems for congenital uterine anomalies detected using three-dimensional ultrasonography. Fertil Steril 104:688–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Schoubroeck D, Van den Bosch T, Timmerman D (2015) 3D ultrasound. In: Grimbizis GF, Campo R, Tarlatzis BC, Gordts S (eds) Female genital tract congenital malformations. Classification, diagnosis and management. Springer, Berlin, pp 79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bermejo C, Ten MP, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Pedregosa JP, Barrón E, Labrador E, López LR (2010) Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35(5):593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A, Campo R, Gordts S, Spinelli M, Cosimato C, Tanos V, Brucker S, Li TC, Gergolet M, De Angelis C, Gianaroli L, Grimbizis G (2015) The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system. Hum Reprod 30(5):1046–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I (2015) Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Mullerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod 30(3):569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Somayya M, Reda A, Atia H (2016) Performance of the ESHRE/ESGE classification in differentiating anomalies of double uterine cavity in comparison with the ASRM classification. Middle East Fertil Soc J 21(2):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heinonen PK (2016) Distribution of female genital tract anomalies in two classifications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 206:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Kougioumtsidou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Themistoklis Mikos
    • 1
  • Grigoris F. Grimbizis
    • 1
  • Aikaterini Karavida
    • 1
  • Theodoros D. Theodoridis
    • 1
  • Alexandros Sotiriadis
    • 1
  • Basil C. Tarlatzis
    • 1
  • Apostolos P. Athanasiadis
    • 1
  1. 1.1st Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyPapageorgiou General HospitalThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations