{"paper_id":"df528423-ba61-4a6c-85ea-702498c667fb","body_text":"Abstract\nPurpose\nTo compare two different imaging modalities, magnetic resonance (MR), and three-dimensional sonography (3DUS), in order to evaluate the specific role in preoperative work-up of deep infiltrating endometriosis.\nMaterials and methods\n33 women with endometriosis underwent 3DUS and MR followed by surgical and histopathological investigations. Investigators described the disease extension in the following sites: torus uterinus and uterosacral ligaments (USL), vagina, rectovaginal-septum, rectosigmoid, bladder, ovaries. Results were compared with surgical and histopathological findings.\nResults\nOvarian and deep pelvic endometriosis were found by surgery and histology in, respectively, 24 (72.7%) and 22 (66.6%) of the 33 patients. Sensitivity and specificity values of 3DUS for the diagnosis of endometrial cysts were 87.5% and 100%, respectively; those of MRI were 96.8% and 91.1%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of 3DUS for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis in specific sites were: USL 50% and 94.7%; vagina 84% and 80%; rectovaginal-septum 76.9% and 100%; rectosigmoid 33.3% and 100%; bladder 25% and 100%. Those of MR were: USL 69.2% and 94.3%; vagina 83.3% and 88.8%; rectovaginal-septum 76.4% and 100%; restosigmoid 75% and 100%; bladder 83.3% and 100%.\nConclusions\nMR accurately diagnoses deep infiltrating endometriosis; 3DUS accurately diagnoses deep infiltrating endometriosis in specific locations.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nMelis GB, Paoletti AM, Floris S (2005) Endometriosi. In: Nappi C (ed) Ostetricia e Ginecologia, vol II. Napoli: Idelson-Gnocchi, p 1153\nCandiani GB, Fedele L, Vercellini P (1996) Malattia endometriosica. In: La clinica ostetrica e ginecologica, vol II. Milano: Masson, pp 1343–1377\nCornillie Fj, Oosterlynck D, Lauweryns JM, Koninckx PR (1990) Deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis: histology and clinical significance. Fertil Steril 53:978–983\nMais V, Guerriero S, et al. (1993) The efficiency of transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of endometrioma. Fertil Steril 60:776–780\nFedele L, Bianchi S, et al. (1997) Pre-operative assessment of bladder endometriosis. Hum Reprod 12:2519–2522\nBazot M, Thommasin I, Hourani R, Cortez A, Darai E (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for deep pelvic endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24:180–185\nBazot M, Darai E, Hourani R, et al. (2004) Deep pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease. Radiology 232:379–389\nSeow KM, et al. (2003) Transvaginal three dimensional ultrasonography combined with serum CA 125 level for the diagnosis of pelvic adhesions before laparoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10:320–326\nLandis JR, Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33(2):363–374\nBazot M, et al. (2003) Transvaginal sonography and rectal endoscopic sonography for the assessment of pelvic endometriosis: a preliminary comparison. Hum Reprod 18:1686–1692\nAlcazar JL, Laparte C, Jurado M, Lopez-Garcia G (1997) The role of transvaginal ultrasonography combined with color velocity imaging and pulsed Doppler in the diagnosis of endometrioma. Fertil Steril 67:487–491\nBalleyguier C, et al. (2002) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography in diagnosing bladder endometriosis. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9:15–23\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nGrasso, R.F., Di Giacomo, V., Sedati, P. et al. Diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal 3D ultrasonography. Abdom Imaging 35, 716–725 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9587-7\nPublished:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9587-7","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}