Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:26:38.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Imaging in Gynaecological Practice

from Section 1 - Basic Sciences in Gynaecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2021

By
Nazar Amso
Edited by
Tahir Mahmood ,
Charles Savona-Ventura ,
Ioannis Messinis  and
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Tahir Mahmood
Affiliation:
Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
Charles Savona-Ventura
Affiliation:
University of Malta, Malta
Ioannis Messinis
Affiliation:
University of Thessaly, Greece
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, UK
Get access

Summary

Imaging is an indispensable diagnostic tool in gynaecological practice. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) is most often used in an office environment as an adjunct to clinical examination. Transabdominal ultrasound is employed in specific applications and often as a first step before TVS by non-gynaecologists, while MRI and CT are used selectively as secondary tests for specific indications. Perioperative imaging is increasingly popular in clinical practice. In the first section, the essentials of the ultrasound technique and image optimization skills will be described as well as professional attributes necessary for safe ultrasound practice. In the clinical section, the prescribed approach was based on presenting symptoms as is the case in clinical practice where patients are referred or present themselves with a complaint. It is critical for ultrasound practitioners to accurately recognize normal features easily and, likewise, in the differential diagnosis of abnormal findings, they should master the salient features that will ultimately establish a diagnosis.

Keywords

ultrasound scanningtransvaginalgynaecologyimaginguterineovarianpathology
Type
Chapter
Information
The EBCOG Postgraduate Textbook of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Gynaecology
 , pp. 15 - 31
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Campbell, S. A short history of sonography in obstetrics and gynaecology. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2013;5:213–229.Google Scholar
Amso, NN. Transvaginal ultrasound: the basics. In: Ultrasound in Assisted Reproduction and Early Pregnancy. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2020.Google Scholar
Dodson, MG, Deter, RL. Definition of anatomical planes for use in transvaginal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 1990;18:239–242.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Menstruation in girls and adolescents: using the menstrual cycle as a vital sign. Committee opinion No. 651. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:e143–e146. Reaffirmed 2019.Google Scholar
Leone, FPG, 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.Google Scholar
Van Den Bosch, T, Dueholm, M, Leone, FPG, 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.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of endometrial hyperplasia. Green-top Guideline No. 67. 2016.Google Scholar
Munro, MG, Critchley, HO, Fraser, IS, FIGO Menstrual Disorders Working Group.The FIGO classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years. Fertil Steril 2011;95:2204–2208.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion no. 557: Management of acute abnormal uterine bleeding in nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:891–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucchini, S, Marra, E. Diagnosis of emergencies/urgencies in gynaecology and during the first trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound 2014;17:41–46.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The initial management of chronic pelvic pain. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 41. 2012. Minor updates 2017.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Chronic Pelvic Pain. Washington, DC: ACOG, 2011.Google Scholar
Ghaly, AFF, Chien, PFW. Chronic pelvic pain: clinical dilemma or clinician’s nightmare. Sex Transm Infect 2000;76:419–425.Google Scholar
Longstreth, GF. Irritable bowel syndrome and chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1994;49:505–507.Google Scholar
Rapkin, AJ, Mayer, EA. Gastroenterologic causes for chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1993;20:663–682.Google Scholar
Rapkin, AJ, Kames, LD, Darke, LL, Stampler, FM, Naliboff, BD. History of physical and sexual abuse in women with chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:92–96.Google Scholar
Munro, MG, Critchley, HOD, Broder, MS, Fraser, IS. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2011;113:3–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alcázar, J, Guerriero, S, Pascual, M, et al. Sonographic features of uterine sarcomas: a multicentre retrospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;48(S1). doi: 10.1002/uog.16074.Google Scholar
Naftalin, J, Hoo, W, Pateman, K, et al. How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum Reprod 2012;27:3432–3439.Google Scholar
Kepkep, K, Tuncay, YA, Goynumer, G, Tutal, E. Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Gynecol Obstet 2007;30:341–345.Google Scholar
Dueholm, M, Lundorf, E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19:505–512.Google Scholar
Grimbizis, GF, Gordts, S, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2032–2044.Google Scholar
Grimbizis, GF, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Saravelos, SH, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2016;31:2–7.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of suspected ovarian masses in premenopausal women. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 62. November 2011.Google Scholar
Timmerman, D, Testa, AC, Bourne, T, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:681–690.Google Scholar
Timmerman, D, Ameye, L, Fischerova, D, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010;341:c6839.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of ovarian cysts in postmenopausal women. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 34. July 2016.Google Scholar
Van Calster, B, Van Hoorde, K, Valentin, L, et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 2014;349:g5920.Google Scholar
Jacobs, IJ, Menon, U, Ryan, A, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387:945–956.Google Scholar
Moyle, PL, Kataoka, MY, Nakai, A, Takahata, A. Nonovarian cystic lesions of the pelvis. Radiographics 2010;30:921–938.Google Scholar
Armstrong, SC, Showell, M, Stewart, EA, et al. Baseline anatomical assessment of the uterus and ovaries in infertile women: a systematic review of the evidence on which assessment methods are the safest and most effective in terms of improving fertility outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 2017;23:533–547.Google Scholar
Nannini, R, Chelo, E, Branconi, F, Tantini, C, Scarselli, GF. Dynamic echohysteroscopy: a new diagnostic technique in the study of female infertility. Acta Eur Fertil 1981;12:165–171.Google Scholar
Richman, TS, Viscomi, GN, deCherney, A, Polan, ML, Alcebo, LO. Fallopian tubal patency assessed by ultrasound following fluid injection: work in progress. Radiology 1984;152:507–510.Google Scholar
Ovarian Stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. October 2019.Google Scholar
ESHRE Working Group on Ultrasound in ART. Ultrasound: oocyte pick-up: recommendations of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Endocrinology. June 2019.Google Scholar
Raine-Fenning, N, Jayaprakasan, K, Clewes, J, et al. SonoAVC: a novel method of automatic volume calculation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:691–696.Google Scholar
Deutch, TD, Joergner, I, Matson, DO, et al. Automated assessment of ovarian follicles using a novel three-dimensional ultrasound software. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1562–1568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bogusiewicz, M. Ultrasound imaging in urogynecology: state of the art 2016. Menopause Rev 2016;15:123–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chamié, LP, Ribeiro, DMFR, Caiado, AHM, Warmbrand, G, Serafini, PC. Translabial US and dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor: normal anatomy and dysfunction. Radiographics 2018;38:287–308.Google Scholar
Haider, Z. Ultrasound imaging in relation to intrauterine contraception. In: Ultrasound in Reproductive Healthcare Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018, pp. 163–182.Google Scholar
Clinical Effectiveness Unit. Intrauterine contraception. Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare Clinical Guidance. April 2015, amended September 2019.Google Scholar
O’Brien, P. Ultrasound imaging of progestogen-only subdermal contraceptive implants. In: Ultrasound in Reproductive Healthcare Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018, pp. 151–162.Google Scholar
Brahmi, D, Steenland, MW, Renner, RM, et al. Pregnancy outcomes with an IUD in situ: a systematic review. Contraception 2012;85:131–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pillai, M. Pregnancy ultrasound for sexual and reproductive health work. In: Ultrasound in Reproductive Healthcare Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018, pp. 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolsgaard, MG, Ringsted, C, Dreisler, E, et al. Sustained effect of simulation-based ultrasound training on clinical performance: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;46:312–318.Google Scholar
Tolsgaard, MG, Ringsted, C, Rosthøj, S, et al. The effects of simulation-based transvaginal ultrasound training on quality and efficiency of care: a multicenter single-blind randomized trial. Ann Surg 2017;265:630–637.Google Scholar
Tolsgaard, MG. A multiple-perspective approach for the assessment and learning of ultrasound skills. Perspect Med Educ 2018;7:211–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolsgaard, MG, Chalouhi, GE. Use of ultrasound simulators for assessment of trainee competence: trendy toys or valuable instruments? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52:424–426.Google Scholar
Amso, NN, D’Angelo, A, Panayotidis, C. Training and certification. In: Ultrasound in Assisted Reproduction and Early Pregnancy. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2020.Google Scholar
General Medical Council. Supporting the COVID-19 response: guidance regarding medical education and training. 2020. Available at: www.gmc-uk.org/news/news-archive/guidance-regarding-medical-education-and-training-supporting-the-covid-19-response (accessed 8 June 2020).Google Scholar
Pulijala, Y, Ma, M, Pears, M, Peebles, D, Ayoub, A. Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality in surgical training: a randomized control trial. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 2017;76:1065–1072.Google Scholar
Bracq, M-S, Michinov, E, Jannin, P. Virtual reality simulation in nontechnical skills training for healthcare professionals. a systematic review. Sim Healthcare 2019;14:188–194.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×