Original Article

Validity of Endometrial Cavity Length on 3D Pelvic Ultrasound before Endometrial Ablation

Authors: Kayla Shine, MD, Rachael Cowherd, MD, MPH, Alexandra Rowin, MD, MPH, Raksha Soora, MD, Michelle Meglin, MD

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare endometrial cavity length measurements obtained by preoperative three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of coronal images on pelvic ultrasound with intraoperative endometrial cavity measurements obtained in advance of Minerva endometrial ablation.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 41 individuals who underwent a Minerva endometrial ablation between August 1, 2018 and March 15, 2022 at a single academic medical center. Patients were excluded if they had an in-clinic ablation or no ultrasound with 3D uterine volume within 180 days before surgery. Physician sonologists measured the endometrial cavity length using 3D coronal reconstruction of the cavity. Two measurements were obtained by separate physicians who were blinded to intraoperative values. Intraoperative endometrial cavity lengths were obtained from operative reports. A Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate the agreement of intraoperative and ultrasound measurements.

Results: The mean intraoperative endometrial cavity length (50.7 ± 7.8 mm) was greater than the mean endometrial cavity length by 3D coronal reconstruction of pelvic ultrasound (36.1 ± 6.2 mm, P < 0.0001). The average difference between intraoperative and ultrasound measurements of cavity length was 14.6 ± 9.0 mm. The agreement between measurements was poor (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient 0.06). Using a Bland-Altman plot, the limits of agreement (−3.1 to 32 mm) exceeded the a priori acceptable limits of agreement (−10 to 10 mm).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that preoperative coronal endometrial cavity length measurements by ultrasound are not a valid substitute for intraoperative measurements before Minerva ablation.
Posted in: Obstetrics and Gynecology79

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Famuyide A. Endometrial ablation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25:299–307.
 
2. Laberge P, Garza-Leal J, Fortin C, et al. One-year follow-up results of a multicenter, single-arm, objective performance criteria–controlled international clinical study of the safety and efficacy of the Minerva endometrial ablation system. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22:1169–1177.
 
3. Bakas P, Simopoulou M, Giner M, et al. Accuracy and efficacy of embryo transfer based on the previous measurement of cervical length and total uterine length. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019;299:565–570.
 
4. Cintesun FNI, Cintesun E, Esenkaya U, et al. Uterine dimensions and intrauterine device malposition: can ultrasound predict displacement or expulsion before it happens? Arch Gynecol Obstet 2020;302:1181–1187.
 
5. Abuhamad AZ, Singleton S, Zhao Y, et al. The Z technique: an easy approach to the display of the midcoronal plane of the uterus in volume sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2006;25: 607–612.
 
6. Canteiro R, Bahamondes MV, dos Santos Fernandes A, et al. Length of the endometrial cavity as measured by uterine sounding and ultrasonography in women of different parities. Contraception 2010;81;515–519.
 
7. McBride G. A proposal for strength-of-agreement criteria for Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient. https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=6056f20a-2c2b-4398-b6ff-2cd253186b6d. Published 2005. Accessed July 11, 2023.
 
8. Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med 2015;25:141–151.
 
9. Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B. Which patients benefit from a 3-D reconstructed coronal viewof the uterus added to standard routine 2D pelvic sonography? Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:626–629.
 
10. Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, et al. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;21:578–582.
 
11. Wong L, White N, Ramkrishna J, et al. Three-dimensional imaging of the uterus: the value of the coronal plane. World J Radiol 2015;7:484–493.
 
12. Guerrero JM, Munro MG. Uterine sounding: is there a difference between blind and hysteroscopically directed measurements? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25:411–417.
 
13. Wildemeersch D, Hasskamp T, Nolte K, et al. A multicenter study assessing uterine cavity width in over 400 nulliparous women seeking IUD insertion using 2D and 3-D sonography. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;206:232–238.