Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound is an invaluable tool in the detection and evaluation of many uterine anomalies and improves upon the traditional approach of two-dimensional (2D) ultrasonography. We aim to describe an easy way of assessing the uterine coronal plane using the basic three-dimensional ultrasound in everyday gynecological practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
This study shows an easy way for using three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the detection and evaluation of many uterine anomalies in everyday clinical work. |
A coronal plane view, which encompasses the entire endometrial cavity is usually impossible to obtain using a traditional 2D ultrasound. However, it can be easily displayed using 3D ultrasound reconstruction. Many uterine anomalies are initially suspected on 2D ultrasound. 3D ultrasound reconstruction can then be used to define the lesion much more accurately and is recognized as the standard method for the diagnosis of congenital uterine malformations. Several publications have demonstrated the high level of accuracy in diagnosing and defining uterine anomalies using such a standardized approach. In the hands of an experienced sonographer, the diagnosis of uterine anomalies by 3D ultrasound has been shown be as accurate as an MRI [1]. Additionally, 3D ultrasound performs better than routine 2D ultrasound in diagnosing and defining endometrial pathologies, leiomyomata uteri, and is better in localization of an IUD [2, 3]. The Ultrasound Societies of German speaking countries have based their latest guidelines and quality requirements with these realities in mind [4, 5]. An additional benefit of having a stored 3D volume available is that it can be reviewed offline by other experts to provide a second opinion. This increases the diagnostic value of the examination [6].
The goal of the following presentation is to summarize the best method for obtaining a uterine volume for diagnostic purposes in an everyday gynecological practice. The focus is on reconstruction of the coronal view of the entire endometrial cavity as this allows for the best assessment of the presence and the type of a congenital uterine malformation. Optimally, the endometrial thickness should be at least 5 mm, or the timing of the examination should fall between day 17–25 of the menstrual cycle [6, 7]. Underlying conditions such as leiomyomata or adenomyosis and the presence of an IUD may compromise the evaluation of the endometrial contour. Examination of the endometrial cavity during pregnancy or menstrual bleeding should be avoided for the same reason (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).
Step 1: Obtaining uterus midsagittal plane in 2D (Table 1; Figure 1)
Step 2: Acquisition of standardized multi-planar view. (Table 2, Figure 2)
Step 3: Adjusting the multi-planar view using the “Z rotation” technique [8]. (Table 3, Figure 3)
Step 4: Obtaining correct coronal plane of the uterus. (Table 4, Figures 4, 5, 6)
In case of extreme retroflexion or other untypical positions of the uterus you can also use the “omni view” function with a trace line. This is a means to optimize the view of uterine cavity including the cervix.
Using these steps, you will easily obtain the basic three-dimensional ultrasound of the uterus coronal plane.
Currently, there is no clear consensus among three leading societies (ASRM [9], ESHRE/ESGE [10], CUME [11]) on the classification of congenital uterine anomalies, in particular, of a septate vs. normal uterus. Due to the lack of a consensus it is advised to choose one of the classifications and apply it in everyday gynaecological practice. Following table (Table 5 and Figure 7) shows overview of the societies on the definition of a septate uterus.
Septate uterus according to the three different societies ASRM american society for reproductive medicine, CUME congenital uterine malformation by experts, ESHRE/ESGE European society of human reproduction and embryology/European society for gynecological endoscopy a intercornual line b internal fundal indentation c indentation angle d uterine-wall thickness
Data availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Imboden S et al (2014) Clinical significance of 3D ultrasound compared to MRI in uterine malformations. Ultraschall in Med 35:440–444. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1335664
Andreotti RF et al (2006) Three-dimensional sonography of the endometrium and adjacent myometrium: preliminary observations. J Ultrasound Med 25:1313–1319. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2006.25.10.1313
Benacerraf BR et al (2008) Which patients benefit from a 3D reconstructed coronal view of the uterus added to standard routine 2D pelvic sonography? AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:626–629. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2632
Hoopmann M et al (2022) Quality requirements for gynecological ultrasound examinations of DEGUM level II—recommendations of the sections/working groups gynecology and obstetrics of DEGUM. ÖGUM and SGUM. Ultraschall Med. 43(2):146–158. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1663-6322
Oppelt P et al (2021) Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Genital Malformations (Part 1). Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/052, May 2019). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 81(12):1307–1328. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1471-4781
Benacerraf BR et al (2006) Improving the efficiency of gynecologic ultrasound using 3D volumes: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 25:169–171. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2006.25.2.165
Ludwin A et al (2019) Septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM and CUME definitions: association with infertility and miscarriage, cost and warnings for women and healthcare systems. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 54:800–814. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20291
Abuhamad AZ et al (2006) The Z technique: an easy approach to the display of the mid-coronal plane of the uterus in volume sonography. J Ultrasound Med 25:607–612. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2006.25.5.607
ASRM (2016) Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril 106:530–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.014
Grimbizis GF et al (2016) The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum Reprod 31:2–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0909-1
Ludwin A et al (2018) Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19005
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
GJ: Project development, Data Collection, Manuscript writing and editing. NCP: Manuscript writing and editing. MH: Project conception and development, Data Collection, Manuscript writing and editing. KOK: Project conception and development, Manuscript writing and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
No ethical approval was required. All individual participants provided informed consent for publication of the images.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Jonaityte, G., Kagan, K.O., Prodan, N.C. et al. How to do a 3D uterus ultrasound?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 307, 1839–1845 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-06923-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-06923-y