Three-dimensional Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Müllerian Duct Anomalies

Abstract

Abstract Aims We studied the effectiveness of three-dimensional (3D) ultrasonography in the diagnosis of uterine malformations. Methods 175 patients with clinical or ultrasonographic suspicion of uterine malformation were studied between November 2004 and June 2008. In all women we measured uterine volume for processing and later reconstruction of 3D images. Cases in which no anomaly was detected with the 3D technique were excluded from study. A thorough physical genital examination with speculum was done before or after ultrasonography, except in three women with an imperforate hymen. Uterine malformations were recorded in detail, and the findings were catalogued according to the American Fertility Society (AFS) classification. In 32 women magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was also used, and agreement between the two techniques was calculated with the kappa index. Results The 175 müllerian anomalies we analyzed were diagnosed as agenesis (1 case), unicornuate uterus (1 genuine, 1 communicating), didelphys uterus (4), bicornuate uterus (22), septate uterus (80, 8 with two cervices) and arcuate uterus (68). For 1 unicornuate, 3 bicornuate, 25 septate (4 with two cervices) and 3 arcuate uteri we performed MR imaging. Diagnostic correlation between 3D ultrasonography and MR imaging was obtained in all cases according to the AFS classification (kappa = 100%); concordance was also seen for descriptions of associated uterine malformations except for two cases: 1 bicornuate uterus with the additional presence of a cervical septum as detected by MR imaging, which was not found on hysteroscopy for resection, and 1 septate uterus that appeared to have two cervices on 3D ultrasonography in a patient in whom physical examination was not possible, and in whom MR imaging showed a complete septum with hypointense signals (kappa = 93.45%; 95% confidence interval 80.75- 100%). Discussion Owing to its ability to clearly render contours of anatomical structures, 3D ultrasonography provides detailed images of uterine malformations and yields very similar results to those obtained with MR imaging. For an accurate comparison of the two techniques, ultrasonography should be accompanied by gynecologic physical exploration, since the two methods yield equivalent results for the relation between the uterine cavity and the fundus. MR imaging is especially useful to evaluate the cervix and vagina.