Accuracy of Physical Examination, Transvaginal Sonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Rectal Endoscopic Sonography for Preoperative Evaluation of Rectovaginal Endometriosis

Ying-Han Chen, Dan-bo Wang, Cui-Shan Guo, Cuishan Guo
Ultrasound quarterly · 2019 · vol. 35(1) , pp. 54–60 · doi:10.1097/ruq.0000000000000428 · PMID:30789487 · W2916955799
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 10 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This study found magnetic resonance imaging combined with physical examination to be the most effective for presurgical assessment of rectovaginal endometriosis, while rectal endoscopic sonography accurately diagnosed rectal infiltration.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of physical examination, transvaginal sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and rectal endoscopic sonography for the identification of rectovaginal endometriosis and potential rectal infiltration. Women with suspected rectovaginal endometriosis underwent physical examination, transvaginal sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and rectal endoscopic sonography. Evaluation was performed for the presence of rectovaginal endometriotic foci and rectal infiltration. The findings obtained with these methods were compared with those of surgical and histopathological examination. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were evaluated for each method. Rectovaginal endometriosis was histologically confirmed in 21 (72.4%) of 29 women. With respect to diagnosis of rectovaginal endometriosis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of physical examination were 95.2%, 62.5%, and 86.2%; those of transvaginal sonography were 42.9%, 87.5%, and 55.2%; those of magnetic resonance imaging were 90.5%, 87.5%, and 89.7%; and those of rectal endoscopic sonography were 81.0%, 75.0%, and 79.3%, respectively. With respect to identification of rectal infiltration, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of transvaginal sonography were 26.7%, 85.7%, and 55.2%; those of magnetic resonance imaging were 73.3%, 92.9%, and 82.8%; and those of rectal endoscopic sonography were 86.7%, 85.7%, and 86.2%, respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging combined with physical examination seem to be the main approach for the presurgical assessment of rectovaginal endometriosis. Rectal endoscopic sonography is a worthwhile method for the diagnosis of rectal infiltration.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosisbowel_endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Endosonography Magnetic Resonance Imaging Physical Examination Preoperative Care Rectum Adult Endometriosis Endosonography Female Humans Longitudinal Studies Magnetic Resonance Imaging Middle Aged Physical Examination Predictive Value of Tests Preoperative Care Rectum Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (25)

Cited by (10)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-11T06:19:48.454388+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:22:54.901233+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-04T02:00:05.705006+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK