Ultrassonography Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2005;27(7):401-406
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032005000700006
PURPOSE: to evaluate the agreement between noninvasive methods - pelvic pain, transvaginal ultrasound and hysterosalpingography - and the gynecologic endoscopy approach for the diagnosis of tuboperitoneal factors responsible for conjugal infertility. METHODS: this is a cross-sectional study including 149 infertile patients who were submitted to clinical evaluation, transvaginal ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, hysteroscopy, and laparoscopy. In the evaluation of pelvic pain, the following complaints were considered to be abnormal: pelvic pain of the dyspareunia type, dysmenorrhea or acyclic pain, and pain upon mobilization of the cervix and palpation of the adnexa. Ultrasonographic examination was considered to be altered when adnexal or uterine morphological changes (hydrosalpinx, myomas or uterine malformations) were detected. Hysterosalpingography was considered to be abnormal in the presence of anatomical tubal changes and unilateral or bilateral obstruction. The agreement between noninvasive methods and endoscopy was evaluated by kappa statistics. RESULTS: the agreements between pelvic pain, transvaginal ultrasound, and hysterosalpingography and the endoscopic approach were 46.3% (kappa=0.092; CI 95%: -0.043 to 0.228), 24% (kappa=-0.052; CI 95%: -0.148 to 0.043), and 46% (kappa=0.092; CI 95%: -0.043 to 0.228), respectively. When at least one alteration detected by noninvasive methods was considered, the agreement with endoscopic approach was 63% (kappa=-0.014; CI 95%: -0.227 to 0.199). Sensitivity and specificity in predicting alterations on endoscopic approach were 39.5 and 80% in the presence of pelvic pain, 14.5 and 72% in the presence of alteration on transvaginal ultrasound, 39.5 and 80% in the presence of alteration on hysterosalpingography, and 70.2 and 28% in the presence of at least one alteration by noninvasive methods. CONCLUSION: there is a poor diagnostic agreement between the several noninvasive methods and endoscopy in the investigation of conjugal infertility secondary to tuboperitoneal factors.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2005;27(7):401-406
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032005000700006
PURPOSE: to evaluate the agreement between noninvasive methods - pelvic pain, transvaginal ultrasound and hysterosalpingography - and the gynecologic endoscopy approach for the diagnosis of tuboperitoneal factors responsible for conjugal infertility. METHODS: this is a cross-sectional study including 149 infertile patients who were submitted to clinical evaluation, transvaginal ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, hysteroscopy, and laparoscopy. In the evaluation of pelvic pain, the following complaints were considered to be abnormal: pelvic pain of the dyspareunia type, dysmenorrhea or acyclic pain, and pain upon mobilization of the cervix and palpation of the adnexa. Ultrasonographic examination was considered to be altered when adnexal or uterine morphological changes (hydrosalpinx, myomas or uterine malformations) were detected. Hysterosalpingography was considered to be abnormal in the presence of anatomical tubal changes and unilateral or bilateral obstruction. The agreement between noninvasive methods and endoscopy was evaluated by kappa statistics. RESULTS: the agreements between pelvic pain, transvaginal ultrasound, and hysterosalpingography and the endoscopic approach were 46.3% (kappa=0.092; CI 95%: -0.043 to 0.228), 24% (kappa=-0.052; CI 95%: -0.148 to 0.043), and 46% (kappa=0.092; CI 95%: -0.043 to 0.228), respectively. When at least one alteration detected by noninvasive methods was considered, the agreement with endoscopic approach was 63% (kappa=-0.014; CI 95%: -0.227 to 0.199). Sensitivity and specificity in predicting alterations on endoscopic approach were 39.5 and 80% in the presence of pelvic pain, 14.5 and 72% in the presence of alteration on transvaginal ultrasound, 39.5 and 80% in the presence of alteration on hysterosalpingography, and 70.2 and 28% in the presence of at least one alteration by noninvasive methods. CONCLUSION: there is a poor diagnostic agreement between the several noninvasive methods and endoscopy in the investigation of conjugal infertility secondary to tuboperitoneal factors.
