OP14.01: Current state of pelvic ultrasound for endometriosis: results of an international survey

Our primary goal was to compare how obstetrician-gynecologists (OBGYNs) in four English-speaking regions (Australia/New Zealand (ANZ), Canada (CAN), United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US)) think of and use transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) in the diagnosis and management of endometriosis. An international cross-sectional survey study was performed between May-November 2018 of OBGYNs belonging to the general obstetrics/gynecology societies of ANZ, CAN, US and UK gynecological endoscopy society. Questions were designed by the study team, input into SurveyMonkey© and piloted. The formal invitation was distributed via e-mail through the respective societies with a reminder e-mail at two weeks. Responses were analysed quantitatively using descriptive and inferential statistics. Missing data were excluded from the analysis. 1140 OBGYNs responded. Regional respondent number and response rate are as follows: ANZ 449 (20.4%), CAN 156 (10.4%), UK: 95 (14.2%), US: 440 (1.4%). 65 respondents were disqualified based on practice composition. Differences in the utilisation of the deep endometriosis (DE) TVS were noted, with ANZ members seemingly adopting the technology more readily. Similarly, ANZ respondents had the highest rates of expectation/belief in the utility of TVS for endometriosis. A high rate of disbelief of TVS utility exists broadly. Lastly, ANZ and CAN members reported bowel DE as the most important feature of endometriosis to predict on imaging preoperatively, while UK and US members ranked rectovaginal septum DE and endometriomas as most important, respectively. Regional differences were noted in the awareness of utility and adoption of TVS for diagnosis of endometriosis. This study should serve as an important stepping stone in raising awareness and introducing educational campaigns to improve the perception of TVS utility and adoption of this essential preoperative and diagnostic tool. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.