How Long Does a Transvaginal Ultrasound Examination for Endometriosis Take in Comparison to a Routine Transvaginal Ultrasound Examination?

Overview

Journal Australas J Ultrasound Med

Date 2022 Mar 7

PMID 35251899

Authors

Alison Deslandes

Nayana Parange

Jessie T Childs

Brooke Osborne

Catrina Panuccio

Anthea Croft

Eva Bezak

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to determine the additional time needed to perform an endometriosis transvaginal ultrasound (eTVUS) compared to routine transvaginal ultrasound (rTVUS).

Methods: A retrospective case-control study was performed. The study group included 199 eTVUS performed between September 2019 and September 2020. The control group comprised 105 consecutive rTVUS studies performed in the same time period. The time stamps on the ultrasound images of all cases in both groups were reviewed to determine the time taken to perform each study. Mean, median, minimum and maximum scan times for both groups were calculated as was percentage difference between scan times. A two-tailed, unpaired t-test of the normalised data and a Mann-Whitney U test assessing time difference of scans between two groups were performed with P value <0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results: Performing eTVUS took significantly longer than rTVUS with increases in the mean (8.4 vs 13.8 min, 64%), median (7 vs 12 min, 71%), minimum (4 vs 7 min, 75%) and maximum (19 vs 42 min, 121%) scan times. The Mann-Whitney U test indicated a statistically significant difference in the median scan times (5.0, CI 4.0-6.0), P < 0.001. An independent t-test of the normalised data revealed a significantly larger mean scan time for eTVUS than rTVUS, Mean = 9.05 95%CI [13.17-4.94], t(302) = 4.327, P < 0.001. = 0.583.

Conclusion: Endometriosis transvaginal ultrasound added an average 5.4 min to rTVUS, which is statistically significant. For ultrasound departments wanting to offer this technique, doubling the scan time allocated to perform a transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) is suggested.

Citing Articles

Advances in Imaging for Assessing Pelvic Endometriosis.

Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Pagliuca M, Borzacchelli A, Deiala F, Springer S Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(12).

PMID: 36552967 PMC: 9777476. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12122960.

Transvaginal Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Assessment of Endometriosis-An Overview: How, Why, and When.

Daniilidis A, Grigoriadis G, Dalakoura D, DAlterio M, Angioni S, Roman H Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(12).

PMID: 36552919 PMC: 9777206. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12122912.

Quality and quantification: Is it time to rethink?.

Whalley G Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2022; 25(1):3-4.

PMID: 35251897 PMC: 8873618. DOI: 10.1002/ajum.12292.

References

Bazot M, Thomassin I, Hourani R, Cortez A, Darai E . Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for deep pelvic endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 24(2):180-5. DOI: 10.1002/uog.1108. View

Leonardi M, Martins W, Espada M, Georgousopoulou E, Condous G . Prevalence of negative sliding sign representing pouch of Douglas obliteration during pelvic transvaginal ultrasound for any indication. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 56(6):928-933. DOI: 10.1002/uog.22023. View

Reid S, Winder S, Condous G . Sonovaginography: redefining the concept of a "normal pelvis" on transvaginal ultrasound pre-laparoscopic intervention for suspected endometriosis. Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2017; 14(2):21-24. PMC: 5024889. DOI: 10.1002/j.2205-0140.2011.tb00190.x. View

Gerges B, Li W, Leonardi M, Mol B, Condous G . Meta-analysis and systematic review to determine the optimal imaging modality for the detection of bladder deep endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021; 261:124-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.04.030. View

Agarwal S, Chapron C, Giudice L, Laufer M, Leyland N, Missmer S . Clinical diagnosis of endometriosis: a call to action. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 220(4):354.e1-354.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.12.039. View

. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of ultrasound of the female pelvis. J Ultrasound Med. 2014; 33(6):1122-30. DOI: 10.7863/ultra.33.6.1122. View

Rowlands I, Abbott J, Montgomery G, Hockey R, Rogers P, Mishra G . Prevalence and incidence of endometriosis in Australian women: a data linkage cohort study. BJOG. 2020; 128(4):657-665. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16447. View

Brennan O, Oh S, Necas M . The value of surveying the kidneys during pelvic ultrasound examinations. Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2021; 22(2):118-128. PMC: 8411717. DOI: 10.1002/ajum.12122. View

Hudelist G, Fritzer N, Thomas A, Niehues C, Oppelt P, Haas D . Diagnostic delay for endometriosis in Austria and Germany: causes and possible consequences. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27(12):3412-6. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des316. View

10.

Gerges B, Li W, Leonardi M, Mol B, Condous G . Optimal imaging modality for detection of rectosigmoid deep endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 58(2):190-200. DOI: 10.1002/uog.23148. View

11.

Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Minguez J, Jurado M, Mais V, Melis G . Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of deep endometriosis in uterosacral ligaments, rectovaginal septum, vagina and bladder: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 46(5):534-45. DOI: 10.1002/uog.15667. View

12.

Nisenblat V, Bossuyt P, Farquhar C, Johnson N, Hull M . Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 2:CD009591. PMC: 7100540. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009591.pub2. View

13.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A . G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(2):175-91. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193146. View

14.

Guerriero S, Condous G, Van den Bosch T, Valentin L, Leone F, Van Schoubroeck D . Systematic approach to sonographic evaluation of the pelvis in women with suspected endometriosis, including terms, definitions and measurements: a consensus opinion from the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48(3):318-32. DOI: 10.1002/uog.15955. View

15.

Deslandes A, Parange N, Childs J, Osborne B, Bezak E . Current Status of Transvaginal Ultrasound Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis Before Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Ultrasound Med. 2020; 39(8):1477-1490. DOI: 10.1002/jum.15246. View

16.

Piessens S, Edwards A . Sonographic Evaluation for Endometriosis in Routine Pelvic Ultrasound. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 27(2):265-266. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.08.027. View

17.

Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Orozco R, Perniciano M, Jurado M, Melis G . Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of deep endometriosis in the rectosigmoid: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 47(3):281-9. DOI: 10.1002/uog.15662. View

18.

Piessens S . Is it time to include assessment of the most common gynaecological condition in the routine ultrasound evaluation of the pelvis?. Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2021; 22(2):83-85. PMC: 8411747. DOI: 10.1002/ajum.12159. View

19.

Reid S, Lu C, Casikar I, Reid G, Abbott J, Cario G . Prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration in women with suspected endometriosis using a new real-time dynamic transvaginal ultrasound technique: the sliding sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 41(6):685-91. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12305. View

20.

OHara R, Rowe H, Fisher J . Managing endometriosis: a cross-sectional survey of women in Australia. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2020; 43(3):265-272. DOI: 10.1080/0167482X.2020.1825374. View