⚙
AI-generated deep summary
by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-17
· read from full text
ⓘ
This cross-sectional study enrolled 100 subfertile women aged 20–40 years and compared findings from transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) with those from diagnostic laparoscopy, using clinical examination, sonography, and surgical observations at BIRDEM General Hospital (Dhaka) during 2015. TVS and laparoscopy were broadly similar for detecting gross uterine and some ovarian findings (e.g., normal uterus and fibroids; normal ovaries and polycystic changes), with high tube visualization by TVS, but TVS missed peritubular adhesions seen at laparoscopy in 14%. TVS showed lower performance for peritoneal disease, including underdiagnosis of pouch of Douglas abnormalities and endometriosis, yielding reported sensitivity of 62.87%, specificity 81%, PPV 89%, and NPV 49% for pelvic pathology. This paper is centrally about endometriosis only in the sense that TVS underdiagnosed endometriosis compared with laparoscopy, while the main focus is comparing TVS versus laparoscopy for pelvic pathology in subfertile women.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subfertility, a growing global issue, arises from diverse gynecological factors including pelvic pathologies. While laparoscopy is the diagnostic gold standard, it is invasive and costly. Transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) offers a less invasive, affordable alternative, yet its diagnostic accuracy for pelvic pathology in subfertile women requires validation.Aim:To assess and compare the detection of gross pelvic pathology in subfertile women by TVS and laparoscopy.Materials and Method:This cross-sectional study enrolled 100 subfertile women aged 20–40 years at Bangladesh Institute of Research and Rehabilitation in Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders (BIRDEM) General Hospital, Dhaka, from January to December 2015. All underwent TVS followed by diagnostic laparoscopy. Data collection included clinical examination, sonography, and surgical findings.Results: The study included women aged 20–40 years, predominantly between 26 and 35 years. Among them, 61% had primary and 39% had secondary subfertility. TVS identified a normal uterus in 66% and fibroids in 14% of cases, comparable to laparoscopy findings (76% normal uterus, 14% fibroids). TVS detected normal ovaries in 56% and polycystic changes in 32%, while laparoscopy detected 40% and 38%, respectively. Fallopian tubes were visualized in 96% by TVS and 84% by laparoscopy. However, TVS failed to detect peritubular adhesions visible in 14% by laparoscopy. Hydrosalpinx was observed in 4% by TVS and 2% by laparoscopy. Pouch of Douglas abnormalities and endometriosis were underdiagnosed by TVS compared to laparoscopy. Overall, TVS demonstrated a sensitivity of 62.87%, specificity of 81%, positive predictive value of 89%, and negative predictive value of 49% in detecting pelvic pathology.Conclusion:TVS is a valuable, noninvasive tool for detecting uterine and some ovarian pathologies in sub-fertile women. Yet, it has limitations in detecting tubal and peritoneal disease, emphasizing that laparoscopy remains necessary for definitive diagnosis in complex cases. J Med Coll Women Hosp.2026; 22(1): 42-52
Full text
2,619 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
Comparison between Transvaginal Ultrasonography and Laparoscopic Findings of Pelvic Pathology in Subfertile Patient
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3329/jmcwh.v22i1.85800Keywords:
Sub-fertility, Transvaginal Ultrasonography, Laparoscopy, Pelvic Pathology, Diagnostic AccuracyAbstract
BACKGROUND: Subfertility, a growing global issue, arises from diverse gynecological factors including pelvic pathologies. While laparoscopy is the diagnostic gold standard, it is invasive and costly. Transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) offers a less invasive, affordable alternative, yet its diagnostic accuracy for pelvic pathology in subfertile women requires validation.Aim:To assess and compare the detection of gross pelvic pathology in subfertile women by TVS and laparoscopy.Materials and Method:This cross-sectional study enrolled 100 subfertile women aged 20–40 years at Bangladesh Institute of Research and Rehabilitation in Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders (BIRDEM) General Hospital, Dhaka, from January to December 2015. All underwent TVS followed by diagnostic laparoscopy. Data collection included clinical examination, sonography, and surgical findings.Results: The study included women aged 20–40 years, predominantly between 26 and 35 years. Among them, 61% had primary and 39% had secondary subfertility. TVS identified a normal uterus in 66% and fibroids in 14% of cases, comparable to laparoscopy findings (76% normal uterus, 14% fibroids). TVS detected normal ovaries in 56% and polycystic changes in 32%, while laparoscopy detected 40% and 38%, respectively. Fallopian tubes were visualized in 96% by TVS and 84% by laparoscopy. However, TVS failed to detect peritubular adhesions visible in 14% by laparoscopy. Hydrosalpinx was observed in 4% by TVS and 2% by laparoscopy. Pouch of Douglas abnormalities and endometriosis were underdiagnosed by TVS compared to laparoscopy. Overall, TVS demonstrated a sensitivity of 62.87%, specificity of 81%, positive predictive value of 89%, and negative predictive value of 49% in detecting pelvic pathology.Conclusion:TVS is a valuable, noninvasive tool for detecting uterine and some ovarian pathologies in sub-fertile women. Yet, it has limitations in detecting tubal and peritoneal disease, emphasizing that laparoscopy remains necessary for definitive diagnosis in complex cases.
J Med Coll Women Hosp.2026; 22(1): 42-52
135
112
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of the Medical College for Women & Hospital
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.