Details
Category: Volume 06 Issue 10 October 2018
Hits: 973

Title: A Study on Accuracy of Ultrasound Imaging in Diagnosing Adnexal Masses Presenting with Acute Symptoms by Clinicopathological Correlation

Authors: Dr Tamilarasi.V, Prof Dr Adaikkappan, Prof Dr Lavanyakumari

 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v6i10.200

Abstract

Transvaginal ultra sound imaging aids as a noninvasive modality to diagnose most of the adnexal pathologies presenting with acute abdomen. An observational study is done to determine the accuracy of ultrasound imaging in the evaluation and characterization of adnexal masses presenting as acute abdomen by correlating the results with histopathological diagnosis. Of the total of 67 patients in the study population, 28 patients presented with acute abdomen. The ultrasound imaging was diagnostic in 7 (25%) cases and contributory to diagnosis in 21(75%) cases.

Background: Abdominal pain is one of the most common presentations of adnexal pathology in gynecology. Early diagnosis and intervention is necessary in adolescent girls and reproductive age group women to conserve reproductive function.

Aim: This study is done to determine the accuracy of ultrasound imaging in the evaluation and characterization of adnexal masses presenting as acute abdomen by correlating the results with  histopathological diagnosis. Transvaginal Ultrasound imaging aids as a noninvasive modality to diagnose most of the adnexal pathologies presenting with acute abdominal pain.

Keywords: Adnexal, acute, torsion, hemorrhage, Rupture, diagnostic, contributory.

References

  1. Likelihood Ratio of Sonographic Findings for the Diagnosis of Hemorrhagic Ovarian Cysts by Maitray D. Patel, MD, Vickie A. Feldstein, MD and Roy A. Filly, MD2005 J Ultrasound Med 24:607-614
  2. Webb EM, Green GE, Scoutt LM. Adnexal mass with pelvic pain.RadiolClin North Am. 2004; 42:329–48. [PubMed]
  3. Damigos E, Johns J, Ross J. An update on the diagnosis and management of ovarian torsion.The Obstetrician and Gynecologist. 2012;14:229–36.
  4. Balci O, Icen MS, Mahmoud AS, Capar M, Colakoglu MC. Management and outcomes of adnexal torsion: A 5-year experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284:643–6. [PubMed]
  5. Göçmen A, Karaca M, Sari A. Conservative laparoscopic approach to adnexal torsion. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;277:535–8. [PubMed]
  6. Alkatout I, Mettler L, Anlauf M, Jonat W, Eckmann-Scholz C, Schollmeyer T. Management of adnexal torsion by laparoscopic approach. Gynecol Surg. 2012;9:405–9.
  7. Erdemoğlu M, Kuyumcuoglu U, Guzel AI. Clinical experience of adnexal torsion: Evaluation of 143 cases. J Exp Ther Oncol. 2011;9:171–4. [PubMed]
  8. American College of Radiology. ACR Appro- priateness Criteria 2008: clinically suspected adnexal mass. American College of Radiology Web site.Available at http://www.acr.org/ SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_ safety/ app_criteria/ pdf/ Expert Panelon Womens Imaging/ Suspected Adnexal Masses- Doc11.aspx. Accessed November 9, 2009.
  9. Liu J, Xu Y, Wang J. Ultrasonography, com- puted tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2007;62:328–334.
  10. Patel MD. Practical approach to the adnexal mass.RadiolClin North Am 2006;44:879– 899.
  11. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. ObstetGynecol 2009;113:384–394.
  12. Timmerman D, Schwarzler P, Collins WP, et al. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:11–16.
  13. Valentin L. Use of morphology to character- ize and manage common adnexal masses. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 18:71–89.
  14. Kinkel K, Lu Y, Mehdizade A, Pelte MF, Hricak H. Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization–meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology 2005; 236:85–94.
  15. Moszynski R, Szpurek D, Smolen A, Sajdak S. Comparison of diagnostic usefulness of predictive models in preliminary differentiation of adnexal masses. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16:45–51.
  16. Van Holsbeke C, Yazbek J, Holland TK, et al. Real-time ultrasound vs evaluation of static images in the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol 2008;32:828–831.
  17. Brown DL, Doubilet PM, Miller FH, et al. Benign and malignant ovarian masses: selec- tion of the most discriminating gray-scale and Doppler sonographic features. Radiology 1998;208:103–110.
  18. Granberg S, Wikland M, Jansson I. Macro- scopic characterization of ovarian tumors and the relation to the histological diagnosis: criteria to be used for ultrasound evaluation. GynecolOncol 1989;35:139–144.
  19. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ul- trasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:500–505.
  20. Ekerhovd E, Wienerroith H, Staudach A, Granberg S. Preoperative assessment of uni- locular adnexal cysts by transvaginal ultrasonography: a comparison between ultrasonographic morphologic imaging and histopathologic diagnosis. Am J ObstetGynecol 2001;184:48– 54.

Corresponding Author

Prof Dr Lavanyakumari

Professor and Head, Department of Obstetrics and Gyneacology, RMMCH, Annamalai University, Chidambaram - 608 002, Tamil Nadu, India

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.