Preoperative uterine volume estimation: transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) versus MRI (ellipsoid volume formula and 3D volumetry)

Dahila Amal Djema, Jean Dubuisson, Meriem Boukrid, Nicolas Villard, Anastasia Kalovidouri, Diomidis Botsikas

Abstract


Purpose: Preoperative uterine volume estimation is a major consideration for surgeons as the choice of the optimal surgical approach between vaginal, laparoscopic or abdominal hysterectomy depends on uterine volume. Volume estimation can be done clinically, by ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) if available. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of different methods of preoperative uterine volume calculation including transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and MRI.

Material and Methods: Data of all women who underwent hysterectomy for a benign pathology between January 2013 and December 2015 and had preoperative TVUS and MRI were retrieved. Uterine volume was calculated by application of the ellipsoid volume formula (EVF) based on TVUS and MRI and also by freehand 3D MRI volumetry. Pathology was the standard of reference.

Results: Sixty-seven women were included in this retrospective study. For eight of them, TVUS measurements were not feasible, mainly due to the large size of the uteri. For the remaining 59 women, there was no difference between uterine weights (mean 384.2 g+/- 425.8) and volumes calculated by MRI based on EVF (mean 404.3 g +/- 477.5, p >0.9999), and by 3D MRI volumetry (mean 391.8g +/- 446.1, p>0.9999). The difference between the standard of reference and the volumes calculated by TVUS (mean 334.0 g +/- 370.6, p=0.0011) were statistically significant.

Conclusions: According to our results, preoperative uterine volume calculation is more accurately performed by means of MRI compared to TVUS. When available, uterine volume estimation should be obtained from MRI measurements. For this purpose, EVF can be safely used without the need of time-consuming 3D volumetry.


Keywords


Uterus volumetry; Pelvic MRI; Transvaginal Ultrasound; Hysterectomy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Carlson KJ, Nichols DH, Schiff I. Indications for hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 328(12): 856-860.

Unger JB, Paul R, Caldito G. Hysterectomy for the massive leiomyomatous uterus. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100(6): 1271-1275.

Kovac SR. Guidelines to determine the route of hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85(1): 18-23.

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114(5): 1156-1158.

Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (8): CD003677.

Adelman MR. The morcellation debate: The history and the science. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 58(4): 710-717.

Harb TS, Adam RA. Predicting uterine weight before hysterectomy: ultrasound measurements versus clinical assessment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193(6): 2122-2125.

Stoelinga B, Huirne J, Heymans MW, et al. The estimated volume of the fibroid uterus: a comparison of ultrasound and bimanual examination versus volume at MRI or hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 184: 89-96.

Piiroinen O, Kaihola HL. Uterine size measured by ultrasound during the menstrual cycle. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 1975; 54(3): 247-250.

Platt JF, Bree RL, Davidson D. Ultrasound of the normal nongravid uterus: correlation with gross and histopathology. J Clin Ultrasound 1990; 18(1): 15-19.

Ward SR, Lieber RL. Density and hydration of fresh and fixed human skeletal muscle. J Biomech 2005; 38(11): 2317-2320.

Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, et al. Evaluation of the uterine cavity with magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, and diagnostic hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 2001; 76(2): 350-357.

Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Sorensen JS, et al. Reproducibility of evaluation of the uterus by transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, hysteroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod 2001; 17(1): 195-200.

Cantuaria GH, Angioli R, Frost L, et al. Comparison of bimanual examination with ultrasound examination before hysterectomy for uterine leiomyoma. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92(1): 109-112.

Dekel A, Farhi J, Levy T, et al. Pre-operative ultrasonographic evaluation of nongravid, enlarged uteri--correlation with bimanual examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 80(2): 205-207.

Flickinger L, D’Ablaing G, 3rd, Mishell DR, Jr. Size and weight determinations of nongravid enlarged uteri. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68(6): 855-858.

Rovio PH, Luukkaala T, Vuento M, et al. Ultrasonographic assessment of weight of the myomatous uterus: a pilot study using a new combined geometrical formula. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 137(2): 193-197.

Zivkovic N, Zivkovic K, Despot A, et al. Measuring the volume of uterine fibroids using 2- and 3-dimensional ultrasound and comparison with histopathology, Acta Clin Croat 2012; 51(4): 579-589.

Cornfeld D, Israel G, Martel M, et al. MRI appearance of mesenchymal tumors of the uterus. Eur J Radiol 2010; 74(1): 241-249.

Griffin Y, Sudigali V, Jacques A. Radiology of benign disorders of menstruation. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2010; 31(5): 414-432.

Dudiak CM, Turner DA, Patel SK, et al. Uterine leiomyomas in the infertile patient: preoperative localization with MR imaging versus US and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1988; 167(3): 627-630.

Quinn SD, Vedelago J, Kashef E, et al. Measurement of uterine fibroid volume: a comparative accuracy and validation of methods study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 171(1): 161-165.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36162/hjr.v4i4.296

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.