Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sonographie in der Gynäkologie – Teil 2: suspekte und pathologische Befunde

Sonography in gynecology – Part 2: suspicious and pathological findings

  • CME Zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • Published:
Der Gynäkologe Aims and scope

An Erratum to this article was published on 19 March 2015

Zusammenfassung

Das in der Stufendiagnostik zur Abklärung gynäkologischer Befunde zuerst angewandte Verfahren ist die transvaginale Sonographie. Entsprechende Geräte gehören zur Grundausstattung einer gynäkologischen Sprechstunde und sind fast überall vorhanden. Bei relativ gutem Patientinnenkomfort lässt sich in kurzer Zeit ein detaillierter Überblick über das innere Genitale gewinnen. Die Sonographie ist eine dynamische Untersuchung und bietet daher den Vorteil – im Gegensatz zur statischen Bildgebung (Computer-, Magnetresonanztomographie) – zusätzliche objektive und subjektive Informationen zu erheben.

Abstract

Transvaginal sonography is the primary procedure used in the staged diagnostics for clarification of gynecological findings. The corresponding instrumentation belongs to the basic equipment in a gynecological consultation and is available practically everywhere. A detailed overview of the internal genital organs can be obtained within a short period of time while maintaining relatively good patient comfort. Sonography is a dynamic examination and therefore provides the advantage of acquisition of additional objective and subjective information, in contrast to static imaging techniques, such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9
Abb. 10
Abb. 11
Abb. 12
Abb. 13

Literatur

  1. Voigt F et al (2014) Sonographie in der Gynäkologie. Gynakologe 47(3):191–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mwenda AS (2013) Imperforate Hymen – a rare cause of acute abdominal pain and tenesmus: case report and review of the literature. Pan Afr Med J 15:28

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Göhring UJ et al (2013) Embryologie, Entwicklungsanomalien und Fehlbildungen des weiblichen Genitale und der Brust. In: Kaufmann M, Costa S, Scharl A (Hrsg) Die Gynäkologie. Springer, Heidelberg Berlin New York Tokio, S 27–45

  4. Skiadas VT et al (2004) Ovarian masses in young adolescents: imaging findings with surgical confirmation. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 25(2):201–206

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang M et al (2014) Ovarian masses in children and adolescents – an analysis of 521 clinical cases. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 27(3):e73–e77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deligeoroglou E et al (2004) Ovarian masses during adolescence: clinical, ultrasonographic and pathologic findings, serum tumor markers and endocrinological profile. Gynecol Endocrinol 19(1):1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Oltmann SC et al (2010) Can we preoperatively risk stratify ovarian masses for malignancy? J Pediatr Surg 45(1):130–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Epelman M et al (2011) Imaging of pediatric ovarian neoplasms. Pediatr Radiol 41(9):1085–1099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grimbizis GF et al (2013) The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 28(8):2032–2044

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC (2008) Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 14(5):415–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. o A (1988) The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49(6):944–955

    Google Scholar 

  12. Römer T, Nawroth F (2013) Uterine Fehlbildungen. In: Diedrich K, Ludwig M Griesinger G (Hrsg) Reproduktionsmedizin. Springer, Berlin, S 375–387

  13. Moini A et al (2013) Accuracy of 3-dimensional sonography for diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. J Ultrasound Med 32(6):923–927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bocca SM, Abuhamad AZ (2013) Use of 3-dimensional sonography to assess uterine anomalies. J Ultrasound Med 32(1):1–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM (2004) Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233(1):19–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Paradisi R et al (2014) Hysteroscopic metroplasty: reproductive outcome in relation to septum size. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289(3):671–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schauberger CW, Mathiason MA, Rooney BL (2005) Ultrasound assessment of first-trimester bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 105(2):333–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lane BF et al (2013) ACR appropriateness Criteria(R) first trimester bleeding. Ultrasound Q 29(2):91–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Doubilet PM et al (2013) Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester. N Engl J Med 369(15):1443–1451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bennett GL et al (1996) Subchorionic hemorrhage in first-trimester pregnancies: prediction of pregnancy outcome with sonography. Radiology 200(3):803–806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Oppelt P, Gätje R (2013) Extrauteringravidität. In: Kaufmann M, Costa S, Scharl A (Hrsg) Die Gynäkologie. Springer, Heidelberg Berlin New York Tokio, S 325–342

  22. Casikar I, Reid S, Condous G (2012) Ectopic pregnancy: ultrasound diagnosis in modern management. Clin Obstet Gynecol 55(2):402–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Visca E, Vökt C, Tercanli S (2008) Sonographische Diagnostik von Trophoblasterkrankungen in der Frühschwangerschaft. Ther Umsch 65:657−661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kirk E, Papageorghiou A, Condous G et al (2007) The accuracy of first trimester ultrasound in the diagnosis of hydatidiform mole. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29:70–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sebire NJ (2005) The diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease in early pregnancy: implications for screening, c.a.m.U.O.G., The diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease in early pregnancy: implications for screening, counseling and management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:421–424

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Baird DD et al (2003) High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(1):100–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hanafi M (2013) Ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis, leiomyoma, or combined with histopathological correlation. J Hum Reprod Sci 6(3):189–193

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Timmerman D et al (2000) Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 16(5):500–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Grab D et al (2011) Standards zur gynäkologischen Sonografie. Ultraschall in Med 32(04):415–417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schwarz J, Mahner S, Jänicke F (2013) Adnexe. In: Kaufmann M, Costa S, Scharl A (Hrsg) Die Gynäkologie. Springer, Berlin, S 529–564

  31. Pavlik EJ et al (2013) Frequency and disposition of ovarian abnormalities followed with serial transvaginal ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol 122(2 Pt 1):210–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hudelist G et al (2012) Diagnostic delay for endometriosis in Austria and Germany: causes and possible consequences. Hum Reprod 27(12):3412–3416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Exacoustos C, Manganaro L, Zupi E (2014) Imaging for the evaluation of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 28(5):655–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hudelist G et al (2013) Uterine sliding sign: a simple sonographic predictor for presence of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41(6):692–695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hudelist G et al (2009) Can transvaginal sonography predict infiltration depth in patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum? Hum Reprod 24(5):1012–1017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gentry-Maharaj A et al (2013) Acceptance of transvaginal sonography by postmenopausal women participating in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41(1):73–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sharma A et al (2013) Factors affecting visualization of postmenopausal ovaries: descriptive study from the multicenter United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42(4):472–477

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Jacobs I et al (2011) Sensitivity of transvaginal ultrasound screening for endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women: a case-control study within the UKCTOCS cohort. Lancet Oncol 12(1):38–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schnell-Inderst P et al (2011) Individual health services. GMS Health Technol Assess 7:Doc05

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Steiner E, Juhasz-Böss I, Mallmann P (2013) Die Bedeutung der vaginalen Ultraschalluntersuchung zur Früherkennung des Endometriumkarzinoms. Frauenarzt 54(1):14–17

    Google Scholar 

  41. o A (2013) Bedeutung des vaginalen Ultraschalls – Kommentare von P. Mallmann, C. Sohn, W. Harflinger und K. Seck, B. Schmalfeldt, M. Kiechle. Frauenarzt 54(7):668–672

    Google Scholar 

  42. Breijer MC et al (2010) Diagnostic strategies for postmenopausal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol Int 2010

  43. Astrup K, Olivarius Nde F (2004) Frequency of spontaneously occurring postmenopausal bleeding in the general population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83(2):203–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Timmermans A et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of endometrial thickness to exclude polyps in women with postmenopausal bleeding. J Clin Ultrasound 36(5):286–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. o A (2014) Committee Opinion No. 601: tamoxifen and uterine cancer. Obstet Gynecol 123(6):1394–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Giannella L et al (2014) A risk-scoring model for the prediction of endometrial cancer among symptomatic postmenopausal women with endometrial thickness > 4 mm. Biomed Res Int 2014:130569

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Timmerman D et al (2010) Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 341:c6839

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Van Calster B et al (2014) Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 349:g5920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Faschingbauer F et al (2013) Automatic texture-based analysis in ultrasound imaging of ovarian masses. Ultraschall Med 34(2):145–150

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. F. Voigt, F. Faschingbauer, U.Dammer, M. Vasku, N. Maass und T.W. Goecke geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Frauenklinik, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Deutschland

    F. Voigt, M. Vasku, N. Maass & T.W. Goecke

  2. Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Deutschland

    F. Faschingbauer & U. Dammer

Authors
  1. F. Voigt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Faschingbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. U. Dammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Vasku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Maass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T.W. Goecke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Voigt.

Additional information

Dieser Weiterbildungsbeitrag ist der zweite Teil eines Doppelbeitrags. Den ersten Teil „Sonographie in der Gynäkologie. Teil 1: Normalbefunde“ finden Sie im Heft 3/2014 von Der Gynäkologe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Voigt, F., Faschingbauer, F., Dammer, U. et al. Sonographie in der Gynäkologie – Teil 2: suspekte und pathologische Befunde. Gynäkologe 48, 139–158 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-014-3480-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-014-3480-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keyword

Search

Navigation