Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography and hysterosalpingography in the detection of uterine cavity pathologies among infertile women.

Abstract

Uterine cavity pathology may affect the endometrium or myometrium, resulting in distortion of the uterine cavity, and is responsible for 2%-5% of infertility. The methods for its assessment usually involve imaging modalities like pelvic ultrasonography, often transvaginal-(TVS), and hysterosalpingography-(HSG), with hysteroscopy-(HSC) as the gold standard. However, HSC is not readily available in resource-poor-settings. To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of TVS and HSG in detecting uterine cavity pathology using HSC as a gold standard. A cross-sectional analytical study of consenting infertile women for evaluation of the uterine cavity using transvaginal-ultrasonography, hysterosalpingogram, and hysteroscopy. The primary-outcome-measures were the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of TVS and HSG in detecting uterine cavity abnormalities using HSG as the gold standard. Eighty-eight participants were analysed for this study. The lesions confirmed on HSC were intrauterine-adhesions (43.1%), endometrial polyps (14.8%), submucous fibroids (18.2%), intrauterine-septum (13.6%), and cavity distortion (14.8%). The overall sensitivity with TVS was 57.7%, with a specificity of 97.6%, a positive-predictive-value (PPV) of 88.2%, and a negative-predictive-value (NPV) of 88.2%, giving a percentage-accuracy of 88.2%. In comparison, HSG had a sensitivity of 72.1%, a specificity of 99.4%, a PPV of 97.4%, and an NPV of 92.0%, giving an overall accuracy of 92.9%. The detection rates of TVS and HSG in this category were: fibroids (97.7% vs 89.8%; p = .0004) and adhesions (73.9% vs 87.5%; p = .0002), respectively. HSG appears to be the superior modality for detection of obliterative uterine cavity pathologies, while TVS is better suited for myometrium and endometrial lesions.