DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20172905

Role of transvaginal sonography in gynecological diagnosis at a tertiary care hospital

Sitalakshmi V., Alpana Bansal

Abstract


Background: Transvaginal sonography (TVS) is very useful to assess the abnormalities in the anatomical structure of the uterus as well as endometrium. Not only this, it is capable of finding out any abnormalities of ovary, fallopian tubes, cervical structures as well as myometrium. The objective of the study was the role of transvaginal sonography in gynecological diagnosis at a tertiary care hospital.

Methods: Present hospital based prospective study was carried out among 31 randomly selected eligible patients as per inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study for a period of one year at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of S. V. Medical College, Tirupati. All ethical guidelines were followed. A pre-designed and semi structured pre-tested questionnaire was prepared for entry of patient data.

Results: Transvaginal sonography was more accurate in terms of evaluation of both tubes. Overall diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography was 90.9%. It was found that the accuracy of clinical diagnosis was 100% in comparison to diagnosis by scan. In five cases, the clinical diagnosis of infertility was made as ovarian cyst and in all those cases it was confirmed. In three cases, the clinical diagnosis of infertility was made as fibroids and in all those cases it was confirmed. It was found that in cases of ectopic pregnancy, copper T missing loop and missed abortion, the clinical diagnosis was 100% accurate in comparison to scan diagnosis. Only in case of pelvic inflammatory disease, the accuracy of clinical diagnosis was 66% in comparison to scan diagnosis.

Conclusions: Despite the few disadvantages of transvaginal sonography in measuring large pelvic masses, the smallest details of the masses yield valuable preoperative information. The more accurate delineation of internal echo characteristics scores the benefit over transvaginal sonography has its rightful place in gynecological practice has diagnostic and minimally invasive therapeutic tool.


Keywords


Assessment, Endometrium, Hyperplasia, Transvaginal sonography

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aslam M, Ijaz L, Tariq S. Comparison of Transvaginal Sonography and Saline Contrast Sonohysterography in Women with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: Correlation with Hysteroscopy and Histopathology. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2007;1(1):17-24.

Goyal BK, Gaur I, Sharma S. Transvaginal sonography versus hysteroscopy in evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. Med J Armed Forces India. 2015;71(2):120-5.

Bubinsky TJ. Value of sonography in the diagnosis of abnormal vaginal bleeding. J Clin Ultrasound. 2004;32(7):348-53.

Karlsson B, Granberg S, Hellberg P. Comparative study of transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy for the detection of pathologic endometrial lesions in women with postmenopausal bleeding. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13(10):757-62.

Davis PC, O’Neill MJ, Yoder IC. Sonohysterographic findings of endometrial and subendometrial conditions. Radiographics. 2002;22(4):803-16.

Bree RL, Bowerman RA, Bohm-Velez M. US evaluation of the uterus in patients with postmenopausal bleeding: A positive effect on diagnostic decision making. Radiol. 2000;216(1):260-4.

Dubinsky TJ, Parvey HR, Maklad N. The role of transvaginal sonography and endometrial biopsy in the evaluation of peri- and postmenopausal bleeding. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169(1):145-9.

Abu-Ghazzeh Y, Shakoury WA, Barqawi R. Comparative study of transvaginal hysterosonography and biopsy for the evaluation of post-menopausal bleeding. Ann Saudi Med. 1999;19(2):116-9.

O’Connell LP, Fries MH, Zeringue E. Triage of abnormal postmenopausal bleeding: a comparison of endometrial biopsy and transvaginal sonohysterography versus fractional curettage with hysteroscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178(5):956-61.

Holst J, Koskela O, von Schoultz B. Endometrial findings following curettage in 2018 women according to age and indications. Ann Chir Gynecol. 1983;72(5):274-7.