A comparison of uterine corpus and endometrium volumes measured in 2D and 3D modes
https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0771-073
Abstract
Objective: to compare the uterine corpus and endometrium volumes measured in 2D and 3D modes.
Material and methods. The observational retrospective cohort study included 154 women of reproductive age with no myometrial or endometrial pathology. Pelvic ultrasound was performed with the use of the Affiniti70 (Philips, Netherlands) with a multifrequency 3D intracavitary probe. The uterine corpus volume and endometrial volume were measured both in 2D and 3D modes, followed by a calculation of the percentage ratio of endometrial volume to uterine corpus volume (endometrial/uterine corporeal volume ratio (EV/UCV)).
Results. The values of uterine corpus volume measured in 3D mode were higher than in 2D mode, with a relative measurement error of 7.2%. The strength of the correlation turned out to be very high (r = 0.91, p = 0.458). According to the Bland-Altman plot, almost all values of the volume difference in pairwise measurements fell within the interval ±1.96 SD 95%; a low average difference indicates a low systematic discrepancy in measurements, and the degree of value scatter is quite acceptable. The values of endometrium volume in 3D mode were lower than in 2D mode; the relative error in 2D mode, regardless of the cycle phase, was -35.3%. There was a strong correlation between the two measurement methods (r = 0.81), but the differences in allocations were significant (p<0.05).
Conclusion. It is permissible to use the values of the uterine corpus volume obtained in 2D mode as an analogue of 3D mode volume in routine practice, while it is not acceptable in the assessment of endometrium volume and EV/UCV.
About the Authors
I. A. Ozerskaya
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina A. Ozerskaya – Doct. of Sci. (Med.), Professor, Professor of the Department of Ultrasound Diagnostics of the Faculty of Continuing Medical Education of the Medical Institute of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University), Moscow
G. G. Kazaryan
LLC “Medskan”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gayane G. Kazaryan – Cand. of Sci. (Med.), Head of the department of ultrasound, LLC “Medskan”, Moscow
E. V. Minashkina
Center for Reproduction and Genetics “Nova Clinic” LLC “MedInService”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena V. Minashkina – ultrasound diagnostic doctor of Center for Reproduction and Genetics “Nova Clinic” LLC “MedInService”, Moscow
References
1. Goldstuck N.D. Dimensional analysis of the endometrial cavity: how many dimensions should the ideal intrauterine device or system have? Int. J. Womens Health. 2018; 10: 165–168. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S158281
2. Leone F.P.G., Timmerman D., Bourne T. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 35: 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7487
3. Van Den Bosch T., Dueholm M., Leone F.P.G. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 46: 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14806
4. Gordon D. Zwei- und dreidimensionale Ultraschalltechniken in der medizinischen Diagnostik [Two- and three dimensional ultrasonic technics in medical diagnosis]. Schweiz. Med. Wochenschr. 1969; 99 (27): 976–984. German. PMID: 4895631.
5. King D.L., King D.L.Jr., Shao M.Y. Evaluation of in vitro measurement accuracy of a three-dimensional ultrasound scanner. J. Ultrasound Med. 1991; 10 (2): 77–82. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1991.10.2.77
6. Riccabona M., Nelson T.R., Pretorius D.H., Davidson T.E. Distance and volume measurement using three-dimensional ultrasonography. J. Ultrasound Med. 1995; 14 (12): 881–886. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1995.14.12.881
7. Hösli I.M., Tercanli S., Herman A. et al. In vitro volume measurement by three-dimensional ultrasound: comparison of two different systems. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 1998; 11: 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1998.11010017.x
8. Linney A.D., Deng J. Three-dimensional morphometry in ultrasound. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: J. Engineer. Medicine. 1999; 213 (3): 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1243/0954411991534942
9. Riccabona M., Nelson T.R., Pretorius D.H. Three-dimensional ultrasound: accuracy of distance and volume measurements. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 1996; 7: 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.07060429.x
10. Gilja O.H., Hausken T., Berstad A., Odegaard S. Measurements of organ volume by ultrasonography. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H. 1999; 213 (3): 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1243/0954411991534951
11. Mitkov V.V., Chereshneva Yu.N., Mitkova M.D., Bataeva R.S. Comparison of the capabilities of two-dimensional and three-dimensional echography for in vitro volumetric studies. Ultrasound and functional diagnostics. 2003; 4: 114–120 (In Russian)
12. Pang B.S., Kot B.C., Ying M. Three-dimensional ultrasound volumetric measurements: is the largest number of image planes necessary for outlining the region-of-interest? Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2006; 32 (8): 1193–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.04.012
13. Barreto E.Q., Milani H.J., Araujo Júnior E. et al. Reliability and validity of in vitro volume calculations by 3-dimensional ultrasonography using the multiplanar, virtual organ computer-aided analysis (VOCAL), and extended imaging VOCAL methods. J. Ultrasound Med. 2010; 29 (5): 767–774. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2010.29.5.767
14. Smeets N.A., Winkens B., Oei S.G. Volume-related measurement error by three-dimensional ultrasound with a rotational multiplanar technique. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2013; 75 (1): 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000343006
15. Farrell T., Leslie J.R., Chien P.F., Agustsson P. The reliability and validity of three dimensional ultrasound volumetric measurements using an in vitro balloon and in vivo uterine model. BJOG. 2001; 108 (6): 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00148.x
16. Bataeva R.S., Mitkov V.V., Mitkova M.D. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the results of ultrasound volumetry of the thyroid gland. Ultrasound and functional diagnostics. 2006; 1: 37–42 (In Russian)
17. Rasmussen C.K., Hansen E.S., Dueholm M. Inter-rater agreement in the diagnosis of adenomyosis by 2- and 3-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. J. Ultrasound Med. 2019; 38 (3): 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14735
18. Jurkovic D., Gruboeck K., Tailor A., Nicolaides K.H. Ultrasound screening for congenital uterine anomalies. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1997; 104 (11): 1320–1321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb10982.x
19. Arakelyan A.S., Gus A.I., Adamyan L.V., Popryadukhin A.Yu., Boykova Yu.V. The role of 3D echographic diagnostics in the choice of tactics for reconstructive plastic surgery for anomalies of the uterus and vagina. Reproduction problems. 2021; 27(4): 32–42. https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20212704132 (In Russian)
20. Xydias E.M., Kalantzi S., Tsakos E. et al. Comparison of 3D ultrasound, 2D ultrasound and 3D Doppler in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma in patients with uterine bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2022; 277: 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.08.005
21. Lysenko O.V., Rozhdestvenskaya T.A. Measuring endometrial volume in the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplastic processes in women of reproductive age. VSMU Bulletin. 2013; 12(1). https://core.ac.uk/display/53876199?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1. Access date 01/19/2024 (In Russian)
22. Rabadanova A.K., Shalina R.I., Gugushvili N.A. Hemodynamics of the uterus and the state of the ovarian reserve in assessing the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization. Bulletin of RGMU. 2018; 2:52–59. https://doi.org/10.24075/vrgmu.2018.015 (In Russian)
23. Feng Y., Zhang S., Zhou Y. et al. Three-dimensional measurement and analysis of morphological parameters of the uterus in infertile women. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2022; 12 (4): 2224–2237. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-21-812
24. Liu Y., Yue Q., Wang L. et al. Using 2D/3D ultrasound observation of endometrial thickness, endometrial volume, and blood flow changes to predict the outcome of frozen embryo transfer cycles: a prospective study. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2023; 13 (6): 3915–3926. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-22-705
25. Belousov M.A., Ozerskaya I.A., Gavrilov A.V., Zaitsev P.V. Three-dimensional echography of the uterine cavity. Ultrasound and functional diagnostics. 2003; 1: 36-40 (In Russian)
26. Gruboeck K., Jurkovic D., Lawton F. et al. The diagnostic value of endometrial thickness and volume measurements by three-dimensional ultrasound in patients with postmenopausal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 1996; 8 (4): 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.08040272.x
27. Minko B.A., Salnikova M.V., Gelbutovskaya S.M., Strogonov E.A. Possibilities of complex ultrasound examination using modern techniques in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Radiation diagnostics and therapy. 2022; 13(1): 58–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2022-13-1-58-69 (In Russian)
28. Ozerskaya I.A., Semiletova A.A., Kazaryan G.G. Ultrasound diagnosis of endometritis (B-mode). Ultrasound and functional diagnostics. 2017; 6: 36–52 (In Russian)
29. Maged A.M., Kamel A.M., Abu-Hamila F. et al. The measurement of endometrial volume and sub-endometrial vascularity to replace the traditional endometrial thickness as predictors of in-vitro fertilization success. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2019; 35(11): 949-954. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2019.1604660
30. Martins R.S., Oliani A.H., Oliani D.V., de Oliveira J.M. Continuous endometrial volumetric analysis for endometrial receptivity assessment on assisted reproductive technology cycles. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20: 663. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03372-2
31. Ozerskaya I.A., Gus A.I., Kazaryan G.G. Ultrasound assessment of endometrial receptivity. Guidelines. M:. MEDpress-inform, 2024. 80 p. (In Russian)
32. Ozerskaya I.A., Ivanov V.A., Kazaryan G.G. Ultrasound diagnosis of endometritis: features of morphological types in B-mode. Bulletin of postgraduate medical education. 2019; 1: 95–104 (In Russian)
33. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J. Biopharm Stat. 2007; 17 (4): 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543400701329422
34. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
35. Yaman C., Jesacher K., Pölz W. Accuracy of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound in uterus volume measurements; comparison with two-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2003; 29 (12): 1681–1684. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-5629(03)01070-6
36. Casikar I., Mongelli M., Reid S., Condous G. Estimation of uterine volume: A comparison between Viewpoint and 3D ultrasound estimation in women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. Australas J. Ultrasound Med. 2015; 18 (1): 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2205-0140.2015.tb00020.x
37. Nabil H., Elrefaie W. Endometrial Volume as a Predictor of Endometrial Pathology in Perimenopausal Uterine Bleeding. https://ichgcp.net/ru/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03351673.
38.
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Ozerskaya I.A., Kazaryan G.G., Minashkina E.V. A comparison of uterine corpus and endometrium volumes measured in 2D and 3D modes. Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics. 2024;(1):71-87. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0771-073
Views:
817
Email this article 