Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/26368
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorSistema FMUSP-HC: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) e Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP-
dc.contributor.authorANDRES, Marina Paula-
dc.contributor.authorBORRELLI, Giuliano Moyses-
dc.contributor.authorRIBEIRO, Juliana-
dc.contributor.authorBARACAT, Edmund Chada-
dc.contributor.authorABRAO, Mauricio Simoes-
dc.contributor.authorKHO, Rosanne M.-
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-08T14:34:54Z-
dc.date.available2018-05-08T14:34:54Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationJOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, v.25, n.2, p.257-264, 2018-
dc.identifier.issn1553-4650-
dc.identifier.urihttps://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/26368-
dc.description.abstractAdenomyosis is characterized by the presence of ectopic foci of endometrial glandular tissue and/or stroma within the myometrium. The diagnosis of adenomyosis is traditionally made through histologic evaluation of the postsurgical specimen. More recently, imaging with transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) has been used for the preoperative diagnosis of adenomyosis. As yet, there is no consensus regarding the best imaging feature or combination thereof for the nonsurgical diagnosis of adenomyosis. This study systematically evaluated the literature in the last 10 years to determine the accuracy of 2-dimensional (2D) TVUS, different imaging features, enhancing methods such as 3-dimensional (3D) TVUS, elastography and color Doppler in the nonsurgical diagnosis of adenomyosis. A total of 8 studies were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for 2D TVUS for the diagnosis of adenomyosis for all combined imaging characteristics was 83.8% and 63.9%, respectively. Pooled sensitivity for 355 total patients with use of imaging feature of heterogeneous myometrium with 2D TVUS was highest (86.0%), and pooled specificity for 283 total patients with use of globular uterus was highest (78.1%). After including the ""question mark"" sign with other TVUS features, higher sensitivity and specificity, of 92% and 88%, respectively, were noted. For 3D TVUS, pooled sensitivity and specificity for all combined imaging characteristics was 88.9% and 56.0%, respectively. Poor definition of junctional zone showed the highest pooled sensitivity (86%) and the highest pooled specificity (56.0%) for the diagnosis of adenomyosis with 3D TVUS. There was no improvement in overall accuracy in 3D TVUS compared with 2D TVUS. Preliminary results of TVUS with color Doppler showed a high sensitivity and specificity for the differentiation between adenomyosis and myomas (95.6% and 93.4%, respectively). Also, TVUS elastography in 1 study showed an improvement in specificity (82.9%) compared with 2D TVUS (63.9%), albeit with comparable sensitivity. Larger studies are needed to advance our understanding of the different types of adenomyosis and their clinical impact.-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCIENCE INC-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology-
dc.rightsrestrictedAccess-
dc.subjectTransvaginal ultrasound-
dc.subjectAdenomyosis-
dc.subjectUltrasonography-
dc.subjectDoppler-
dc.subjectColor-
dc.subject3D imaging-
dc.subjectMeta-analysis-
dc.subject.otherassociation-
dc.subject.othersonography-
dc.subject.othersymptoms-
dc.subject.otherfeatures-
dc.subject.othercriteria-
dc.subject.otheruterus-
dc.titleTransvaginal Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis-
dc.typearticle-
dc.rights.holderCopyright ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.653-
dc.identifier.pmid28864044-
dc.subject.wosObstetrics & Gynecology-
dc.type.categoryreview-
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion-
hcfmusp.author.externalRIBEIRO, Juliana:Univ Sao Paulo, Fac Med, Hosp Clin HCFMUSP, Gynecol Div,Endometriosis Sect, Sao Paulo, Brazil-
hcfmusp.author.externalKHO, Rosanne M.:Cleveland Clin, Womens Hlth Inst, Benign Gynecol Surg Sect, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA-
hcfmusp.description.beginpage257-
hcfmusp.description.endpage264-
hcfmusp.description.issue2-
hcfmusp.description.volume25-
hcfmusp.origemWOS-
hcfmusp.origem.idWOS:000425331700009-
hcfmusp.origem.id2-s2.0-85030855791-
hcfmusp.publisher.cityNEW YORK-
hcfmusp.publisher.countryUSA-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAbbott JA, 2017, BEST PRACT RES CL OB, V40, P68, DOI 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.09.006-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAcar S, 2016, ULTRASOUND, V24, P205, DOI 10.1177/1742271X16673677-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAlabiso G, 2016, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V23, P476, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.12.017-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAmerican Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2014, J ULTRAS MED, V33, P1122-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAZZIZ R, 1989, OBSTET GYN CLIN N AM, V16, P221-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBazot M, 2001, HUM REPROD, V16, P2427, DOI 10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBergeron C, 2006, BEST PRACT RES CL OB, V20, P511, DOI 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.01.016-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBergholt T, 2001, HUM REPROD, V16, P2418, DOI 10.1093/humrep/16.11.2418-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceDi Donato N, 2015, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, V46, P126, DOI 10.1002/uog.14750-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceExacoustos C, 2011, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V37, P471, DOI 10.1002/uog.8900-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGarcia L, 2011, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V18, P428, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.004-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGonzales M, 2012, GYNECOL SURG, V9, P259, DOI 10.1007/s10397-012-0746-4-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceHanafi Magdi, 2013, J Hum Reprod Sci, V6, P189, DOI 10.4103/0974-1208.121421-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKepkep K, 2007, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V30, P341, DOI 10.1002/uog.3985-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLevgur M, 2000, OBSTET GYNECOL, V95, P688, DOI 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00659-6-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLuciano DE, 2013, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V20, P803, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.05.002-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMoher David, 2015, Syst Rev, V4, P1, DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceNaftalin J, 2016, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V47, P779, DOI 10.1002/uog.15798-
hcfmusp.relation.referencePinzauti S, 2015, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V46, P730, DOI 10.1002/uog.14834-
hcfmusp.relation.referencePistofidis G, 2014, CLIN EXP OBSTET GYN, V41, P113-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSakhel K, 2012, J ULTRAS MED, V31, P805-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSharma K, 2015, J CLIN DIAGN RES, V9, pQC8, DOI 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12240.5846-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceStruble J, 2016, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V23, P164, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.09.018-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSun YL, 2010, TAIWAN J OBSTET GYNE, V49, P40, DOI 10.1016/S1028-4559(10)60007-1-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceWhiting Penny, 2003, BMC Med Res Methodol, V3, P25, DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceZamora Javier, 2006, BMC Med Res Methodol, V6, P31, DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-6-31-
dc.description.indexMEDLINE-
dc.identifier.eissn1553-4669-
hcfmusp.citation.scopus116-
hcfmusp.scopus.lastupdate2024-04-12-
Appears in Collections:

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOG
Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia - FM/MOG

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Instituto Central - HC/ICHC

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/58
LIM/58 - Laboratório de Ginecologia Estrutural e Molecular


Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
art_ANDRES_Transvaginal_Ultrasound_for_the_Diagnosis_of_Adenomyosis_Systematic_2018.PDF
  Restricted Access
publishedVersion (English)1.61 MBAdobe PDFView/Open Request a copy

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.