Clarifying the role of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in reproductive medicine: an evidenced-based appraisal

Open Access
Commentary

Abstract

This overview describes and illustrates the clinical applications of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in reproductive medicine. Its main applications include assessment of uterine anomalies, intrauterine pathology, tubal patency, polycystic ovaries, ovarian follicular monitoring and endometrial receptivity. It is also useful for detailed evaluation of failed and/or ectopic pregnancy. Three-dimensional color Doppler sonography provides enhanced depiction of uterine, endometrial, and ovarian vascularity.

References

  1. 1.
    Linney AD, Deng J: Three-dimensional morphometry in ultrasound. Proc Inst Mech Eng. 1999, 213 (3): 235-45. 10.1243/0954411991534942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    King DL, King DL, Shao MY: Three-dimensional spatial registration and interactive display of position and orientation of real-time ultrasound images. J Ultrasound Med. 1990, 9 (9): 525-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunner M, Obruca A, Bauer P, Feichtinger W: Clinical application of volume estimation based on three-dimensional ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995, 6 (5): 358-61. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.06050358.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maymon R, Herman A, Ariely S, Dreazen E, Buckovsky I, Weinraub Z: Three-dimensional vaginal sonography in obstetrics and gynaecology. Hum Reprod Update. 2000, 6 (5): 475-84. 10.1093/humupd/6.5.475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heer IM, Strauss A, Muller-Egloff S, Hasbargen U: Telemedicine in ultrasound: new solutions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001, 27 (9): 1239-43. 10.1016/S0301-5629(01)00420-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pretorius DH, Nelson TR: Three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995, 5 (4): 219-21. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05040219.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilja OH, Hausken T, Berstad A, Odegaard S: Measurements of organ volume by ultrasonography. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 1999, 213 (3): 247-59. 10.1243/0954411991534951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kyei-Mensah A, Maconochie N, Zaidi J, Pittrof R, Campbell S, Tan SL: Transvaginal three-dimensional ultrasound: reproducibility of ovarian and endometrial volume measurements. Fertil Steril. 1996, 66 (5): 718-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raine-Fenning NJ, Campbell BK, Collier J, Brincat MB, Johnson IR: The reproducibility of endometrial volume acquisition and measurement with the VOCAL-imaging program. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002, 19 (1): 69-75. 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00608.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farrell T, Leslie JR, Chien PF, Agustsson P: The reliability and validity of three dimensional ultrasound volumetric measurements using an in vitro balloon and in vivo uterine model. Bjog. 2001, 108 (6): 573-82. 10.1016/S0306-5456(00)00148-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riccabona M, Nelson TR, Pretorius DH: Three-dimensional ultrasound: accuracy of distance and volume measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996, 7 (6): 429-34. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.07060429.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raine-Fenning NJ, Clewes JS, Kendall NR, Bunkheila AK, Campbell BK, Johnson IR: The interobserver reliability and validity of volume calculation from three-dimensional ultrasound datasets in the in vitro setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 21 (3): 283-91. 10.1002/uog.61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riccabona M, Nelson TR, Pretorius DH, Davidson TE: In vivo three-dimensional sonographic measurement of organ volume: validation in the urinary bladder. J Ultrasound Med. 1996, 15 (9): 627-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kyei-Mensah A, Zaidi J, Pittrof R, Shaker A, Campbell S, Tan SL: Transvaginal three-dimensional ultrasound: accuracy of follicular volume measurements. Fertil Steril. 1996, 65 (2): 371-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amer A, Hammadeh ME, Kolkailah M, Ghandour AA: Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional ultrasound measurement of follicular volume: are they comparable?. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003, 268 (3): 155-7. 10.1007/s00404-002-0315-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pairleitner H, Steiner H, Hasenoehrl G, Staudach A: Three-dimensional power Doppler sonography: imaging and quantifying blood flow and vascularization. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999, 14 (2): 139-43. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14020139.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raine-Fenning NJ, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Kendall NR, Johnson IR: The reliability of the semi-quantification of ovarian, endometrial and sub-endometrial perfusion using three-dimensional power Doppler angiography and shell-imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 22 (12): 633-639. 10.1002/uog.923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jarvela IY, Sladkevicius P, Tekay AH, Campbell S, Nargund G: Intraobserver and interobserver variability of ovarian volume, gray-scale and color flow indices obtained using transvaginal three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 21 (3): 277-82. 10.1002/uog.62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kupesic S: Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001, 18 (4): 387-400. 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00539.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID: The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000, 73 (1): 1-14. 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00480-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, Jauniaux E, Natucci M, Campbell S: Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995, 5 (4): 233-7. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05040233.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG: Congenital Mullerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 1996, 65 (3): 523-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE: Detection of congenital mullerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997, 25 (9): 487-92. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199711/12)25:9<487::AID-JCU4>3.0.CO;2-J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woelfer B, Salim R, Banerjee S, Elson J, Regan L, Jurkovic D: Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2001, 98 (6): 1099-103. 10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01599-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jurkovic D, Gruboeck K, Tailor A, Nicolaides KH: Ultrasound screening for congenital uterine anomalies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997, 104 (11): 1320-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salim R, Regan L, Woelfer B, Backos M, Jurkovic D: A comparative study of the morphology of congenital uterine anomalies in women with and without a history of recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2003, 18 (1): 162-6. 10.1093/humrep/deg030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L, Jurkovic D: Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 21 (6): 578-82. 10.1002/uog.127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    La Torre R, De Felice C, De Angelis C, Coacci F, Mastrone M, Cosmi EV: Transvaginal sonographic evaluation of endometrial polyps: a comparison with two dimensional and three dimensional contrast sonography. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1999, 26 (3–4): 171-3.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sylvestre C, Child TJ, Tulandi T, Tan SL: A prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of two- and three-dimensional sonohysterography in women with intrauterine lesions. Fertil Steril. 2003, 79 (5): 1222-5. 10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00154-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kiyokawa K, Masuda H, Fuyuki T, Koseki M, Uchida N, Fukuda T, et al: Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (3D-HyCoSy) as an outpatient procedure to assess infertile women: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000, 16 (7): 648-54. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00327.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sladkevicius P, Ojha K, Campbell S, Nargund G: Three-dimensional power Doppler imaging in the assessment of Fallopian tube patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000, 16 (7): 644-7. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00302.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sankpal RS, Confino E, Matzel A, Cohen LS: Investigation of the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes using three-dimensional saline sonohysterosalpingography. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2001, 73 (2): 125-9. 10.1016/S0020-7292(01)00363-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jarvela IY, Mason HD, Sladkevicius P, Kelly S, Ojha K, Campbell S, et al: Characterization of normal and polycystic ovaries using three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002, 19 (12): 582-90. 10.1023/A:1021267200316.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wu MH, Tang HH, Hsu CC, Wang ST, Huang KE: The role of three-dimensional ultrasonographic images in ovarian measurement. Fertil Steril. 1998, 69 (6): 1152-5. 10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00092-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dolz M, Osborne NG, Blanes J, Raga F, Abad-Velasco L, Villalobos A, et al: Polycystic ovarian syndrome: assessment with color Doppler angiography and three-dimensional ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 1999, 18 (4): 303-13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pan HA, Wu MH, Cheng YC, Li CH, Chang FM: Quantification of Doppler signal in polycystic ovary syndrome using three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography: a possible new marker for diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2002, 17 (1): 201-6. 10.1093/humrep/17.1.201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kyei-Mensah AA, LinTan S, Zaidi J, Jacobs HS: Relationship of ovarian stromal volume to serum androgen concentrations in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 1998, 13 (6): 1437-41. 10.1093/humrep/13.6.1437.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nardo LG, Buckett WM, White D, Digesu AG, Franks S, Khullar V: Three-dimensional assessment of ultrasound features in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS): ovarian stromal volume does not correlate with biochemical indices. Hum Reprod. 2002, 17 (4): 1052-5. 10.1093/humrep/17.4.1052.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pellicer A, Ardiles G, Neuspiller F, Remohi J, Simon C, Bonilla-Musoles F: Evaluation of the ovarian reserve in young low responders with normal basal levels of follicle-stimulating hormone using three-dimensional ultrasonography. Fertil Steril. 1998, 70 (4): 671-5. 10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00268-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pohl M, Hohlagschwandtner M, Obruca A, Poschalko G, Weigert M, Feichtinger W: Number and size of antral follicles as predictive factors in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000, 17 (6): 315-8. 10.1023/A:1009448810413.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kupesic S, Kurjak A: Predictors of IVF outcome by three-dimensional ultrasound. Hum Reprod. 2002, 17 (4): 950-5. 10.1093/humrep/17.4.950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schild RL, Knobloch C, Dorn C, Fimmers R, van der Ven H, Hansmann M: The role of ovarian volume in an in vitro fertilization programme as assessed by 3D ultrasound. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2001, 265 (2): 67-72. 10.1007/s004040000138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Bancsi LF, Habbema JD, Looman CW, Te Velde ER: Quantitative transvaginal two- and three-dimensional sonography of the ovaries: reproducibility of antral follicle counts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002, 20 (3): 270-5. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00787.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jarvela IY, Sladkevicius P, Kelly S, Ojha K, Campbell S, Nargund G: Quantification of ovarian power Doppler signal with three-dimensional ultrasonography to predict response during in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 102 (4): 816-22. 10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00693-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Bjelos D, Vujisic S: Three-dimensional ultrasonographic ovarian measurements and in vitro fertilization outcome are related to age. Fertil Steril. 2003, 79 (1): 190-7. 10.1016/S0015-0282(02)04567-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schild RL, Indefrei D, Eschweiler S, Van der Ven H, Fimmers R, Hansmann M: Three-dimensional endometrial volume calculation and pregnancy rate in an in-vitro fertilization programme. Hum Reprod. 1999, 14 (5): 1255-8. 10.1093/humrep/14.5.1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yaman C, Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Polz W, Tews G: Role of three-dimensional ultrasonographic measurement of endometrium volume as a predictor of pregnancy outcome in an IVF-ET program: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril. 2000, 74 (4): 797-801. 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01493-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Casan EM, Klein O, Bonilla F: Assessment of endometrial volume by three-dimensional ultrasound prior to embryo transfer: clues to endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod. 1999, 14 (11): 2851-4. 10.1093/humrep/14.11.2851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kupesic S, Bekavac I, Bjelos D, Kurjak A: Assessment of endometrial receptivity by transvaginal color Doppler and three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization procedures. J Ultrasound Med. 2001, 20 (2): 125-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wu HM, Chiang CH, Huang HY, Chao AS, Wang HS, Soong YK: Detection of the subendometrial vascularization flow index by three-dimensional ultrasound may be useful for predicting the pregnancy rate for patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003, 79 (3): 507-11. 10.1016/S0015-0282(02)04698-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schild RL, Holthaus S, d'Alquen J, Fimmers R, Dorn C, van Der Ven H, et al: Quantitative assessment of subendometrial blood flow by three-dimensional-ultrasound is an important predictive factor of implantation in an in-vitro fertilization programme. Hum Reprod. 2000, 15 (1): 89-94. 10.1093/humrep/15.1.89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Steiner H, Gregg AR, Bogner G, Graf AH, Weiner CP, Staudach A: First trimester three-dimensional ultrasound volumetry of the gestational sac. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1994, 255 (4): 165-70. 10.1007/s004040050047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Acharya G, Morgan H: Does gestational sac volume predict the outcome of missed miscarriage managed expectantly?. J Clin Ultrasound. 2002, 30 (9): 526-31. 10.1002/jcu.10107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Babinszki A, Nyari T, Jordan S, Nasseri A, Mukherjee T, Copperman AB: Three-dimensional measurement of gestational and yolk sac volumes as predictors of pregnancy outcome in the first trimester. Am J Perinatol. 2001, 18 (4): 203-11. 10.1055/s-2001-15499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rempen A: The shape of the endometrium evaluated with three-dimensional ultrasound: an additional predictor of extrauterine pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 1998, 13 (2): 450-4. 10.1093/humrep/13.2.450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Su YN, Shih JC, Chiu WH, Lee CN, Cheng WF, Hsieh FJ: Cervical pregnancy: assessment with three-dimensional power Doppler imaging and successful management with selective uterine artery embolization. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999, 14 (4): 284-7. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14040284.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Raine-Fenning and Fleischer; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2005

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Obstetrics & GynaecologyQueen's Medical Centre, University Hospital NHS Trust, NURTURENottinghamUK
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and Radiological SciencesVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations