Comparison of three-dimensional rectosonography, rectal endoscopic sonography and magnetic resonance imaging performances in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis

Amélie Sandré, Sandré A, Charles-André Philip, Charles‐André Philip, De-Saint-Hilaire P, Pierre De-Saint-Hilaire, E. Maissiat, Emmanuelle Maissiat, Maissiat E, Bailly F, François Bailly, Marion Cortet, Gil Dubernard, Dubernard G
European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2019 · vol. 240 , pp. 288–292 · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.008 · PMID:31357094 · W2960930422
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 12 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-27 ⓘ

This study compared the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional rectosonography, rectal endoscopic sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging for rectosigmoid endometriosis.

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

Abstract

Study objectiveComparison of 3D-rectosonography (3D-RSG), rectal endoscopic sonography (RES), and MRI performances in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis using surgery as the Gold Standard.DesignMonocentric retrospective longitudinal study on diagnostic procedures.Design clasificationCanadian Task Force II-2.SettingUniversity Hospital of Lyon Croix-Rousse.PatientsA total of 37 patients treated surgically for pelvic endometriosis.InterventionsExpert 3D-RSG (3D Transvaginal sonography with water contrast in the rectum), MRI and RES performed by expert examiners. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. Depth, size, and volume of intestinal lesions were also compared to the type of surgery performed (shaving versus segmental resection).Measurements and main resultsRectosigmoid endometriosis lesion was confirmed by surgery in 31 patients on 37 (84%). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratios for 3D-RSG were 94%, 100%, 95%, 100%, 75%, +∞ and 0.06 respectively; for RES 81%, 100%, 84%, 100%, 50%, +∞ and 0.19 respectively; while for MRI 90%, 100%, 92%, 100%, 67%, +∞ and 010 respectively. There was no significant difference between the 3 procedures (p > 0.05).Conclusion3D-RSG, RES and MRI seem to be 3 effective procedures in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis. Their performances seem equivalent.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Colonic Diseases Endometriosis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Rectal Diseases Ultrasonography Adult Colonic Diseases Endometriosis Endosonography Endosonography Female Humans Longitudinal Studies Magnetic Resonance Imaging Middle Aged Rectal Diseases Retrospective Studies Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasonography Young Adult

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 (26)

Cited by (13)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-27T06:15:28.040536+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:22:41.077124+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK