Use of 3-Dimensional Sonography to Assess Uterine Anomalies
2013; Wiley; Volume: 32; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.7863/jum.2013.32.1.1
ISSN1550-9613
AutoresSilvina Bocca, Alfred Abuhamad,
Tópico(s)Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
ResumoJournal of Ultrasound in MedicineVolume 32, Issue 1 p. 1-6 Sound Judgment Series Use of 3-Dimensional Sonography to Assess Uterine Anomalies Silvina M. Bocca MD, PhD, Corresponding Author Silvina M. Bocca MD, PhD [email protected] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, USAAddress correspondence to Silvina M. Bocca, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, 601 Colley Ave, Norfolk, VA 23507 USA.Search for more papers by this authorAlfred Z. Abuhamad MD, Alfred Z. Abuhamad MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, USASearch for more papers by this author Silvina M. Bocca MD, PhD, Corresponding Author Silvina M. Bocca MD, PhD [email protected] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, USAAddress correspondence to Silvina M. Bocca, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, 601 Colley Ave, Norfolk, VA 23507 USA.Search for more papers by this authorAlfred Z. Abuhamad MD, Alfred Z. Abuhamad MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 January 2013 https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2013.32.1.1Citations: 20Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References 1Acién P, Acién M, Sánchez-Ferrer ML. Complex malformations of the female genital tract: new types and revision of classification. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2377–2384. 10.1093/humrep/deh423 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 2008; 14: 415–429. 10.1093/humupd/dmn018 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simón C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Müllerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 2277–2281. 10.1093/humrep/12.10.2277 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4Rock JA, Schlaff WD. The obstetric consequences of uterovaginal anomalies. Fertil Steril 1985; 43: 681–692. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)48548-1 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 5Ludmir J, Samuels P, Brooks S, Mennuti MT. Pregnancy outcome of patients with uncorrected uterine anomalies managed in a high-risk obstetric setting. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75: 906–910. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 6 American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications on adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 944–955. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59942-7 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 7Jones WS. Congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Trans N Engl Obstet Gynecol Soc 1953; 7: 79–94. PubMedGoogle Scholar 8Valdes C, Malini S, Malinak LR. Ultrasound evaluation of female genital tract anomalies: a review of 64 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 149: 285–292. 10.1016/0002-9378(84)90228-X CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 9Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal ultrasound, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1992; 183: 795–800. 10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584936 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 10Nicolini U, Bellotti M, Bonazzi B, Zamberletti D, Candiani GB. Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations? Fertil Steril 1987; 47: 89–93. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)49941-3 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 11Fedele L, Ferrazzi E, Dorta M, Vercellini P, Candiani GB. Ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of "double" uteri. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 361–364. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)60087-0 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 12Randolph JFJr, Ying YK, Maier DB, Schmidt CL, Riddick DH. Comparison of real time ultrasonography, hysterosalpingography, and laparoscopy/hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine abnormalities and tubal patency. Fertil Steril 1986; 5: 828–832. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)49820-1 Google Scholar 13Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound 1997; 25: 487–492. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199711/12)25:9 3.0.CO;2-J CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 14Deutch T, Bocca S, Oehninger S. Magnetic resonance imaging versus three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of müllerian anomalies [abstract]. Fertil Steril 2006; 86(suppl): S308.15. Google Scholar 15Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Septate uterus: detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 1998; 17: 631–636. 10.7863/jum.1998.17.10.631 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 16Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Skenderovic S, Bjloes D. Screening for uterine abnormalities by three-dimensional ultrasound improves perinatal outcome. J Perinat Med 2002; 30: 9–17. 10.1515/JPM.2002.002 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 17Jurkovic 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: 233–237. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05040233.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 18Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L, Jurkovic D. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 578–582. 10.1002/uog.127 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 19Abuhamad AZ. Standardization of 3-dimensional volumes in obstetric sonography: a required step for training and automation. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 397–401. 10.7863/jum.2005.24.4.397 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 20Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies: a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27: 413–423. 10.7863/jum.2008.27.3.413 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 21Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1–14. 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00480-X CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 22Kelly SM, Sladkevixious P, Campbell S, Nargund G. Investigation of the infertile couple: a one-stop ultrasound-based approach. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2481–2484. 10.1093/humrep/16.12.2481 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 23Abuhamad AZ, Singleton S, Zhao Y, Bocca S. The Z technique: an easy approach to the display of the midcoronal plane of the uterus in volume sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25: 607–612. 10.7863/jum.2006.25.5.607 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 24Letterie GS, Haggerty M, Lindee G. A comparison of pelvic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging as diagnostic studies for müllerian tract abnormalities. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1995; 40: 34–38. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 25Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, Secaf E, Laros RKJr, Hill EC. Müllerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 1990; 176: 715–720. 10.1148/radiology.176.3.2202012 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 26Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004; 233: 19–34. 10.1148/radiol.2331020777 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 27Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Massari C, Candiani GB. Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 844–847. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 28Santos XM, Krishnamurthy R, Bercaw-Pratt JL, Dietrich JE. The utility of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging versus surgery for the characterization of müllerian anomalies in the pediatric and adolescent population. J Pediatric Adolesc Gynecol 2012; 25: 181–184. 10.1016/j.jpag.2011.12.069 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 29Mueller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR. Müllerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 1294–1302. 10.2214/AJR.07.2494 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 30Creighton SM, Hall-Craggs MA. Correlation or confusion: the need for accurate terminology when comparing magnetic resonance imaging and clinical assessment of congenital vaginal anomalies. J Pediatr Urol 2012; 8: 177–180. 10.1016/j.jpurol.2011.02.005 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 31Stephen EH, Chandra A. Use of infertility serviced in the United States: 1995. Fam Plann Perspect 2000; 32: 132–137. 10.2307/2648162 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 32Bocca SM, Oehninger S, Stadtmauer L. A study of the cost, accuracy, and benefits of 3-dimensional sonography compared with hysterosalpingography in women with uterine abnormalities. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31: 81–85. 10.7863/jum.2012.31.1.81 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume32, Issue1January 2013Pages 1-6 This article also appears in:Sound Judgment Series ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)