SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

Transperineal and endovaginal ultrasound for evaluating suburethral masses: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging

Okeahialam, NA; Taithongchai, A; Sultan, AH; Thakar, R (2021) Transperineal and endovaginal ultrasound for evaluating suburethral masses: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 57 (6). pp. 999-1005. ISSN 1469-0705 https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23123
SGUL Authors: Sultan, Abdul Hameed

[img] Microsoft Word (.docx) Accepted Version
Available under License ["licenses_description_publisher" not defined].

Download (5MB)

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the utility of pelvic floor ultrasound (US) in the detection and evaluation of suburethral masses, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the reference standard. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of US and MRI scans of all women with a suburethral mass on clinical examination at a single urogynecology clinic over a 13-year period (February 2007 to March 2020). All women were examined using two-dimensional transperineal US (2D-TPUS) with or without three-dimensional endovaginal US (3D-EVUS). All patients underwent unenhanced T1-weighted and T2-weighted MRI, which was considered the reference standard in this study. Presence of a suburethral mass and its size, location, connection with the urethral lumen and characteristics were evaluated on both pelvic floor US and MRI. Agreement between pelvic floor US and MRI was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 3,1). Results Forty women suspected of having a suburethral mass on clinical examination underwent both MRI and US (2D-TPUS with or without 3D-EVUS). MRI detected a suburethral mass in 34 women, which was also detected by US. However, US also identified a suburethral mass in the remaining six women. Thus, the agreement between US and MRI for detecting a suburethral mass was 85% (95% CI, 70.2–94.3%). The ICC analysis showed good agreement between MRI and 2D-TPUS for the measured distance between the suburethral mass and the bladder neck (ICC, 0.89; standard error of measurement (SEM), 3.64 mm) and excellent agreement for measurement of the largest diameter of the mass (ICC, 0.93; SEM, 4.31 mm). Good agreement was observed between MRI and 3D-EVUS for the measured distance from the suburethral mass to the bladder neck (ICC, 0.88; SEM, 3.48 mm) and excellent agreement for the largest diameter of the suburethral mass (ICC, 0.94; SEM, 4.68 mm). Conclusions 2D-TPUS and 3D-EVUS are useful in the imaging of suburethral masses. US shows good-to-excellent agreement with MRI in identifying and measuring suburethral masses; therefore, the two modalities can be used interchangeably depending on availability of equipment and expertise.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Okeahialam, N.A., Taithongchai, A., Sultan, A.H. and Thakar, R. (2021), Transperineal and endovaginal ultrasound for evaluating suburethral masses: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 57: 999-1005, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23123. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.
Keywords: 3D Endovaginal ultrasound, Magnetic resonance imaging, Pelvic floor ultrasound, Peri-urethral mass, Sub-urethral masses, Transperineal ultrasound, Urethral Diverticulum, Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, 1114 Paediatrics and Reproductive Medicine
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Institute of Medical & Biomedical Education (IMBE)
Journal or Publication Title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
ISSN: 1469-0705
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
2 June 2021Published
16 September 2020Published Online
3 September 2020Accepted
Publisher License: Publisher's own licence
PubMed ID: 32936990
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/112426
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23123

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item