Role of Three-Dimensional Ultrasound in Gynecology

Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D USG) is a fast-evolving imaging technique that holds a great potential for use in gynecology. Its sensitivity and specificity is reported to be close to 100 % for diagnosing congenital uterine anomalies, comparable with those of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and laparoscopy. With 3D USG, a coronal view of the uterus can be obtained, clearly outlining the external contour of the uterus and providing accurate information about the shape of the cavity. Although 3D USG may not perform well in thin endometria, combining it with saline infusion sonography (SIS) overcomes this problem. Research shows that 3D USG is more sensitive and specific than two-dimensional ultrasound (2D USG) in defining and mapping uterine lesions, such as fibroids, adenomyosis, and intrauterine synechia. In cases of suspected malignancy, 3D USG is mainly used in the initial evaluation of patients. Measuring various indices and mapping vascular architecture with 3D power Doppler have been proposed for evaluating adnexal masses. Although some studies raised hope, no consensus is reached about its use, success, and limitations. In urogynecology, translabial 3D USG is proved to be a valuable tool, as it provides instant access to the axial plane, which clearly depicts the relationship of the vagina, urethra, rectum, and the muscular pelvic floor. Studies report no significant differences between translabial 3D USG and MRI measurements for evaluation of the pelvic floor. In conclusion, adding 3D USG to routine gynecological workup can be beneficial for clinicians, as it provides fast and accurate results in a relatively cost-effective setting. Similar content being viewed by others

Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, et al. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761–71. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(5):415–29. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, et al. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(4):371–82. Armstrong L, Fleischer A, Andreotti R. Three-dimensional volumetric sonography in gynecology: an overview of clinical applications. Radiol Clin North Am. 2013;51(6):1035–47. Faivre E, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uterus compared with office hysteroscopy and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(1):101–6. Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B. Which patients benefit from a 3D reconstructed coronal view of the uterus added to standard routine 2D pelvic sonography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(3):626–9. Ghi T, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(2):808–13. Bermejo C, Martinez Ten P, Cantarero R, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(5):593–601. Ata B, Nayot D, Nedelchev A, et al. Do measurements of uterine septum using three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging agree? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014;36(4):331–8. Ludwin A, Pityński K, Ludwin I, et al. Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):90–9. Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Kudla M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional sonohysterography compared with office hysteroscopy and its interrater/intrarater agreement in uterine cavity assessment after hysteroscopic metroplasty. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1392–9. Ludwin A, Ludwin A, Pitynski K et al. Role of morphologic characteristics of the uterine septum in the prediction and prevention of abnormal healing outcomes after hysteroscopic metroplasty. Hum Reprod. 2014. Bragg AC, Angtuaco TL. Three-dimensional gynecologic ultrasound. Ultrasound Clinics. 2010;5(2):299–311. Abou-Salem N, Elmazny A, El-Sherbiny W. Value of 3-dimensional sonohysterography for detection of intrauterine lesions in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(2):200–4. Knopman J, Copperman AB. Value of 3D ultrasound in the management of suspected Asherman’s syndrome. J Reprod Med. 2007;52(11):1016–22. Ahmadi F, Javam M. Role of 3D sonohysterography in the investigation of uterine synechiae/asherman’s syndrome: pictorial assay. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2014;58(2):199–202. Exacoustos C, Brienza L, Di Giovanni A, et al. Adenomyosis: three-dimensional sonographic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(4):471–9. Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Albrecht L, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis of adenomyosis: histologic correlation with ultrasound targeted biopsies of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(6):803–10. Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B. Three-dimensional ultrasound detection of abnormally located intrauterine contraceptive devices which are a source of pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):110–5. Bazot M, Lafont C, Rouzier R, et al. Accuracy of transvaginal sonography and rectal endoscopic sonography in the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30(7):994–1001. Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Gerada M, et al. “Tenderness-guided” transvaginal ultrasonography: a new method for the detection of deep endometriosis in patients with chronic pelvic pain. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(5):1293–7. Guerriero S, Saba L, Ajossa S, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonography in the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1189–98. Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, et al. Automated follicle tracking improves measurement reliability in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(5):658–63. Ata B, Tulandi T. Ultrasound automated volume calculation in reproduction and in pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2163–70. Ata B, Seyhan A, Reinblatt SL, et al. Comparison of automated and manual follicle monitoring in an unrestricted population of 100 women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):127–33. Dodge JE, Covens AL, Lacchetti C, et al. Preoperative identification of a suspicious adnexal mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):157–66. Alcazar JL, Jurado M. Three-dimensional ultrasound for assessing women with gynecological cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(3):340–6. Alcazar JL, Garcia-Manero M, Galvan R. Three-dimensional sonographic morphologic assessment of adnexal masses: a reproducibility study. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(8):1007–11. Alcazar JL, Rodriguez D. Three-dimensional power Doppler vascular sonographic sampling for predicting ovarian cancer in cystic-solid and solid vascularized masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(3):275–81. Geomini PM, Coppus SF, Kluivers KB, et al. Is three-dimensional ultrasonography of additional value in the assessment of adnexal masses? Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106(1):153–9. Kudla MJ, Alcazar JL. Does sphere volume affect the performance of three-dimensional power Doppler virtual vascular sampling for predicting malignancy in vascularized solid or cystic-solid adnexal masses? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(5):602–8. Kudla MJ, Timor-Tritsch IE, Hope JM, et al. Spherical tissue sampling in 3-dimensional power Doppler angiography: a new approach for evaluation of ovarian tumors. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(3):425–33. Chase DM, Crade M, Basu T, et al. Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian malignancy: preliminary results of the use of 3-dimensional vascular ultrasound. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(3):354–60. Kalmantis K, Rodolakis A, Daskalakis G, et al. Characterization of ovarian tumors and staging ovarian cancer with 3-dimensional power Doppler angiography: correlation with pathologic findings. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(3):469–74. Alcazar JL, Iturra A, Sedda F, et al. Three-dimensional volume off-line analysis as compared to real-time ultrasound for assessing adnexal masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;161(1):92–5. Kalmantis K, Papageorgiou T, Rodolakis A, et al. The role of three-dimensional (3D) sonography and 3D power Doppler in the preoperative assessment of borderline ovarian tumors. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(5):381–5. Laban M, Metawee H, Elyan A, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound and three-dimensional power Doppler in the assessment of ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99(3):201–5. Guerriero S, Saba L, Ajossa S, et al. Assessing the reproducibility of the IOTA simple ultrasound rules for classifying adnexal masses as benign or malignant using stored 3D volumes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;171(1):157–60. Mansour GM, El-Lamie IKI, El-Kady MA, et al. Endometrial volume as predictor of malignancy in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99(3):206–10. Odeh M, Vainerovsky I, Grinin V, et al. Three-dimensional endometrial volume and 3-dimensional power Doppler analysis in predicting endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106(2):348–53. Yaman C, Habelsberger A, Tews G, et al. The role of three-dimensional volume measurement in diagnosing endometrial cancer in patients with postmenopausal bleeding. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110(3):390–5. Alcazar JL and Galvan R. Three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound scanning for the prediction of endometrial cancer in women with postmenopausal bleeding and thickened endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009. 200(1): p. 44 e1–6. Merce LT, Alcazar JL, Lopez C, et al. Clinical usefulness of 3-dimensional sonography and power Doppler angiography for diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(10):1279–87. Dietz HP, Shek C. Levator avulsion and grading of pelvic floor muscle strength. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(5):633–6. Dietz HP. The role of two- and three-dimensional dynamic ultrasonography in pelvic organ prolapse. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(3):282–94. Schwertner-Tiepelmann N, Thakar R, Sultan AH, et al. Obstetric levator ani muscle injuries: current status. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(4):372–83. Dietz HP. Pelvic floor ultrasound: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(4):321–34. Kruger JA, Heap SW, Murphy BA, et al. Pelvic floor function in nulliparous women using three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(3):631–8. Majida M, Braekken IH, Bo K, et al. Validation of three-dimensional perineal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging measurements of the pubovisceral muscle at rest. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(6):715–22. Zhuang RR, Song YF, Chen ZQ et al. Levator avulsion using a tomographic ultrasound and magnetic resonance-based model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011. 205(3): p. 232 e1–8. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Turkgeldi, E., Urman, B. & Ata, B. Role of Three-Dimensional Ultrasound in Gynecology. J Obstet Gynecol India 65, 146–154 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0635-z Received: Accepted: Published: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0635-z