深盆腔子宫内膜异位症的磁共振成像与超声检查的一致性。

Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) Pub Date : 2025-03-31 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1806-9282.20241235
Mihriban Alkan, Gülsüm Kılıçkap
{"title":"深盆腔子宫内膜异位症的磁共振成像与超声检查的一致性。","authors":"Mihriban Alkan, Gülsüm Kılıçkap","doi":"10.1590/1806-9282.20241235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Deep pelvic endometriosis is the most common cause of chronic pelvic pain and infertility. Guidelines proposed standardized approaches for the diagnosis of deep pelvic endometriosis with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging; however, knowing the reasons for discrepancy is crucial. We aimed to analyze the agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings and provide potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study group consists of consecutive patients with deep pelvic endometriosis diagnosed on pelvic (n=1) or transvaginal ultrasonography (n=34) who underwent noncontrast pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. The agreement between the ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging was assessed using the prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa statistics. Potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings were presented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study group consisted of 35 patients with deep pelvic endometriosis. The mean age was 39.5±6.2 years. The most common site of involvement was the rectosigmoid colon (n=34, 97.1%), followed by endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (n=32, 91.4%). There was a perfect agreement for endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (100%), almost perfect agreement for bladder involvement (PABAK=0.886), and moderate agreement for other sites. The number of uterosacral ligament involvement was lower with ultrasonography than with magnetic resonance imaging. However, due to the impact of gas signals on magnetic resonance imaging imaging, the number and boundaries of rectosigmoid deep pelvic endometriosis were better defined with ultrasonography.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings varies according to the sites of involvement. Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are not standalone diagnostic techniques but are complementary to each other. We provided potential diagnostic pitfalls.</p>","PeriodicalId":94194,"journal":{"name":"Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)","volume":"71 2","pages":"e20241235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11964306/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in deep pelvic endometriosis.\",\"authors\":\"Mihriban Alkan, Gülsüm Kılıçkap\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1806-9282.20241235\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Deep pelvic endometriosis is the most common cause of chronic pelvic pain and infertility. Guidelines proposed standardized approaches for the diagnosis of deep pelvic endometriosis with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging; however, knowing the reasons for discrepancy is crucial. We aimed to analyze the agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings and provide potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study group consists of consecutive patients with deep pelvic endometriosis diagnosed on pelvic (n=1) or transvaginal ultrasonography (n=34) who underwent noncontrast pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. The agreement between the ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging was assessed using the prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa statistics. Potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings were presented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study group consisted of 35 patients with deep pelvic endometriosis. The mean age was 39.5±6.2 years. The most common site of involvement was the rectosigmoid colon (n=34, 97.1%), followed by endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (n=32, 91.4%). There was a perfect agreement for endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (100%), almost perfect agreement for bladder involvement (PABAK=0.886), and moderate agreement for other sites. The number of uterosacral ligament involvement was lower with ultrasonography than with magnetic resonance imaging. However, due to the impact of gas signals on magnetic resonance imaging imaging, the number and boundaries of rectosigmoid deep pelvic endometriosis were better defined with ultrasonography.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings varies according to the sites of involvement. Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are not standalone diagnostic techniques but are complementary to each other. We provided potential diagnostic pitfalls.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)\",\"volume\":\"71 2\",\"pages\":\"e20241235\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11964306/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20241235\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20241235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:深盆腔子宫内膜异位症是慢性盆腔疼痛和不孕症的最常见原因。指南提出了超声和磁共振成像诊断深盆腔子宫内膜异位症的标准化方法;然而,了解差异的原因是至关重要的。我们的目的是分析超声和磁共振成像在深盆腔子宫内膜异位症表现上的一致性,并提供不一致表现的潜在陷阱和原因。方法:研究组由连续盆腔深部子宫内膜异位症患者(n=1)或经阴道超声检查(n=34)组成,并行盆腔非对比磁共振成像。超声和磁共振成像之间的一致性评估使用患病率和偏置校正kappa统计。提出了不一致发现的潜在缺陷和原因。结果:研究组35例深盆腔子宫内膜异位症患者。平均年龄39.5±6.2岁。最常见的受累部位是直肠乙状结肠(n=34, 97.1%),其次是子宫内膜异位瘤/出血性囊肿(n=32, 91.4%)。子宫内膜异位瘤/出血症囊肿完全吻合(100%),膀胱受损伤几乎完全吻合(PABAK=0.886),其他部位的吻合程度中等。超声检查发现子宫骶韧带受累的数量低于磁共振检查。然而,由于气体信号对磁共振成像成像的影响,超声检查对直肠乙状体深盆腔子宫内膜异位症的数目和边界更明确。结论:超声与磁共振对深盆腔子宫内膜异位症的诊断依据受累部位的不同而不同。超声和磁共振成像不是独立的诊断技术,而是相互补充的。我们提供了潜在的诊断缺陷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in deep pelvic endometriosis.

Objective: Deep pelvic endometriosis is the most common cause of chronic pelvic pain and infertility. Guidelines proposed standardized approaches for the diagnosis of deep pelvic endometriosis with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging; however, knowing the reasons for discrepancy is crucial. We aimed to analyze the agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings and provide potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings.

Methods: The study group consists of consecutive patients with deep pelvic endometriosis diagnosed on pelvic (n=1) or transvaginal ultrasonography (n=34) who underwent noncontrast pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. The agreement between the ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging was assessed using the prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa statistics. Potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings were presented.

Results: The study group consisted of 35 patients with deep pelvic endometriosis. The mean age was 39.5±6.2 years. The most common site of involvement was the rectosigmoid colon (n=34, 97.1%), followed by endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (n=32, 91.4%). There was a perfect agreement for endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (100%), almost perfect agreement for bladder involvement (PABAK=0.886), and moderate agreement for other sites. The number of uterosacral ligament involvement was lower with ultrasonography than with magnetic resonance imaging. However, due to the impact of gas signals on magnetic resonance imaging imaging, the number and boundaries of rectosigmoid deep pelvic endometriosis were better defined with ultrasonography.

Conclusion: The agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings varies according to the sites of involvement. Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are not standalone diagnostic techniques but are complementary to each other. We provided potential diagnostic pitfalls.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信