Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grimbizis GF, Campo R (2010) Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: the need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril 94:401–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 14:415–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 17:761–771

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Buttram VC, Gibbons WE (1979) Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 32:40–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 49:944–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Acien P, Acien M, Sanchez-Ferrer M (2004) Complex malformations of the female genital tract: new types and revision of classification. Hum Reprod 19:2377–2384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 84:1493–1497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 28:2032–2044

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 10:199–212

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 13:1–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 94:9–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nicolini U, Bellotti M, Bonazzi B, Zamberletti D, Candiani GB (1987) Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations? Fertil Steril 47:89–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 40:34–38

    Google Scholar 

  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 5:233–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 92:808–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):101–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):90–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):616–622

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):578–582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):557–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 104:688–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 79–97

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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):593–601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1046–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):569–580

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):75–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Heinonen PK (2016) Distribution of female genital tract anomalies in two classifications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 206:141–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Papageorgiou General Hospital, Ring Road, Municipality Pavlos Melas, N. Efkarpia, 56403, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Anna Kougioumtsidou, Themistoklis Mikos, Grigoris F. Grimbizis, Aikaterini Karavida, Theodoros D. Theodoridis, Alexandros Sotiriadis, Basil C. Tarlatzis & Apostolos P. Athanasiadis

Authors
  1. Anna Kougioumtsidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Themistoklis Mikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Grigoris F. Grimbizis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aikaterini Karavida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Theodoros D. Theodoridis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexandros Sotiriadis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Basil C. Tarlatzis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Apostolos P. Athanasiadis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Kougioumtsidou.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kougioumtsidou, A., Mikos, T., Grimbizis, G.F. et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis and the classification of congenital uterine anomalies using the ESHRE/ESGE classification: a diagnostic accuracy study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299, 779–789 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05050-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05050-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation