The accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

This retrospective study was performed to comparatively evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of three-dimensional ultrasonography (3D-US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for identification of Müllerian duct anomalies (MDAs). A total of 27 women with suspected MDAs underwent gynaecological examination, 2D-US, 3D-US and MRI, respectively. The MDAs were classified with respect to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology–European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE) and American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) systems. Based on the ESHRE/ESGE classification, there was a discrepancy for only one patient between US and MRI. Thus, the concordance between US and MRI was 26/27 (96.3%). With respect to ASRM classification, there was a disagreement between MRI and 3D-US in three patients, thus the concordance between MRI and 3D-US was 24/27 (88.9%). To conclude, the 3D-US has a good level of agreement with MRI for recognition of MDAs. Impact Statement What is already known on this subject? Müllerian duct anomalies (MDAs) are relatively common malformations of the female genital tract and they may adversely affect the reproductive potential. The establishment of accurate and timely diagnosis of these malformations is critical to overcome clinical consequences of MDAs. What the results of this study add? The concordance between US and MRI for diagnosis of MDAs based on ESHRE-ESGE classification and ASRM were 96.3% and 88.9%, respectively. These results indicate that 3D US has a satisfactory level of diagnostic accuracy for MDAs and it can be used in conjunction with MRI. Minimisation of diagnostic errors is important to improve reproductive outcome and to avoid unnecessary surgical interventions. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Efforts must be spent to eliminate the discrepancies between the clinical and radiological diagnosis of MDAs. Further trials should be implemented for establishment and standardisation of radiological images for identification and classification of MDAs.