Congenital Müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE To determine whether it is possible to identify and diagnose accurately Müllerian anomalies with three-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound (US). DESIGN Controlled blinded clinical study. SETTING Normal human volunteers undergoing infertility evaluation in a university hospital. PATIENTS Forty-two patients who underwent laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography as part of their work up for infertility and were found to have either a normal uterus (30 patients) or a Müllerian abnormality (12 patients) consented to be evaluated with 3-D US by sonographers who were unaware of their infertility history or of their laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography diagnoses. INTERVENTIONS Transvaginal 3-D US evaluation over a 10- to 15-minute duration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Three-dimensional imaging was successful in all cases. RESULTS Sonographers identified a Müllerian anomaly in all cases and came up with the correct classification in 11 of 12 cases. All patients with a normal uterus were identified correctly. CONCLUSIONS In all patients with Müllerian anomalies, 3-D US examination of the endometrial cavity correlated with hysterosalpingography. In 91.6% of patients, 3-D US correlated with the external uterine configuration observed by laparoscopy. This technique may be used reliably in an office setting to diagnose and classify Müllerian anomalies.

[1]  T. Chard,et al.  Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of uterine malformations , 1990, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[2]  D. Jurkovic,et al.  Three‐dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two‐dimensional sonography , 1995, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[3]  W. Feichtinger Transvaginal three‐dimensional imaging , 1993, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[4]  D. Riddick,et al.  Comparison of real-time ultrasonography, hysterosalpingography, and laparoscopy/hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine abnormalities and tubal patency. , 1986, Fertility and sterility.

[5]  P. Vercellini,et al.  Ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of "double" uteri. , 1988, Fertility and sterility.

[6]  G. Letterie,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of müllerian tract abnormalities. , 1988, Fertility and Sterility.

[7]  M. Tortajada,et al.  Müllerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. , 1991, Fertility and sterility.

[8]  U. Nicolini,et al.  Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations? , 1987, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  Indman Pd Abnormal uterine bleeding. Accuracy of vaginal probe ultrasound in predicting abnormal hysteroscopic findings. , 1995 .

[10]  F. Bonilla-musoles,et al.  An assessment of hysterosalpingosonography (HSSG) as a diagnostic tool for uterine cavity defects and tubal patency , 1992, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[11]  S. Saarikoski,et al.  Reproductive Performance of Women with Uterine Anomalies , 1982 .

[12]  L. Green,et al.  Uterine Anomalies: Frequency of Diagnosis and Associated Obstetric Complications , 1976, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  P. Acién Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. , 1993, Human reproduction.

[14]  A. Staudach,et al.  Diagnostic techniques: Three-dimensional ultrasound in obstetrics and gynaecology: technique, possibilities and limitations , 1994 .