Contribution of ultrasound examination in the detection of unexpected uterine and adnexal findings in reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse


Authors: Smažinka M.;  Havíř M.;  Rušavý Z.;  Vlasák P.;  Kovářová V.;  Veverková A.;  Ismail M. K.;  Kališ V.
Authors place of work: Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika LF UK a FN Plzeň
Published in the journal: Ceska Gynekol 2022; 87(1): 13-18
Category: Původní práce
doi: 10.48095/cccg202213

Summary

 Objective: Current urogynaecology practice allows preservation of the uterus in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, thus not reducing oncologic risk. Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound (USG) in dia­gnosing unexpected uterine and adnexal pathologies in women referred for POP. Furthermore, the benefit of USG examination by a specialist in gynaecology-oncology ultrasound was assessed. Materials and methods: All women after a hysterectomy with or without adnexectomy in the course of a POP surgery at our tertiary centre in 2013–2018 with preoperative USG were enrolled in the study. Women with recurrent uterine bleeding, abnormal cytology, using tamoxifen, or women with already dia­gnosed uterine or adnexal pathology were excluded. Results: 289 women were enrolled in the study – 157 (54.3%) expert USG vs. 132 (45.7%) non-expert USG. Abnormal findings were observed on the cervix in one case (non-expert USG), the endometrium 30 (10.4%) cases – 13 (8.3%) expert vs. 17 (12.9%) non-expert USG, the adnexa three (2.3%) cases (all non-expert USG), and no suspicion of malignancy on myometrium was observed. USG was false negative in four (1.4%) cases – two (1.3%) expert vs. two (1.5%) non-expert USG. Conversely, the examination was false positive in 34 (11.8%) cases – 13 (8.3%) expert vs. 21 (15.9%) non-expert USG. Conclusion: The risk of unexpected uterine or adnexal pathologies in POP surgery was 1.4%. The agreement between USG and histopathological benign, abnormal or malign findings was 87.2%. A sonographer specialized in oncologic sonography is able to reduce the number of false positive findings; however, this does not increase the sensitivity of the ultrasound.

Keywords:

tumor – malignancy – pelvic organ prolapse – specialised oncological sonography


Zdroje

1. Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R et al. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988–1990. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 83 (4): 549–555. doi: 10.1097/00006250-199404000-00011.

2. Osborn DJ, Reynolds WS, Dmochowski R et al. Vaginal approaches to pelvic organ prolapse repair. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23 (4): 299–305. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e3283619e1a.

3. Hemming C, Constable L, Goulao B et al. Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs. Health Technol Assess 2020; 24 (13): 1–220. doi: 10.3310/hta24 130.

4. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM et al. Long-term outcomes following abdo­minal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA 2013; 309 (19): 2016–2024. doi: 10.1001/ jama.2013.4919.

5. Kalis V, Smazinka M, Rusavy Z et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the mainstay mana­gement for significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (LAP) study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 244: 60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.049.

6. Smazinka M, Kalis V, Havir M et al. Obesity and its long-term impact on sacrocolpopexy key outcomes (OBELISK). Int Urogynecol J 2020; 31 (8): 1655–1662. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04076-8.

7. Gagyor D, Kalis V, Smazinka M et al. Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study). BMC Womens Health 2021; 21 (1): 72. doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01208-5.

8. Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA et al. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2016; 27 (1): 93–101. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9.

9. Tolstrup CK, Lose G, Klarskov N. The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28 (1): 33–40. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3100-y.8.

10. Kalis V, Rusavy Z, Ismail KM. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: the Pilsner modification. Int Urogynecol J 2020; 31 (6): 1277–1280. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04150-1.

11. Urdzík P, Kalis V, Blaganje M et al. Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey). BMC Womens Health 2020; 20 (1): 241. doi: 10.1186/s12905-020-01105-3.

12. Yen JY, Chen YH, Long CY et al. Risk factors for major depressive disorder and the psychological impact of hysterectomy: a prospective investigation. J Psychosomatics 2008; 49 (2): 137–142. doi: 10.1176/appi.psy.49.2.137.

13. Anastasiadis P, Koutlaki N, Skaphida P et al. Endometrial polyps: prevalence, detection, and malignant potential in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2000; 21 (2): 180–183.

14. Dreisler E, Stampe Sorensen S, Ibsen PH et al. Prevalence of endometrial polyps and abnormal uterine bleeding in a Danish population aged 20–74 years. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33 (1): 102–108. doi: 10.1002/uog.6259.

15. Begum J, Samal R. A clinicopathological evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding and its correlation with risk factors for developing endometrial hyperplasia and cancer: a hospital-based prospective study. J Midlife Health 2019; 10 (4): 179–183. doi: 10.4103/jmh.JMH_136_18.

16. Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L et al. Is transvaginal ultrasound a worthwhile investigation for women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy? J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 28 (4): 418–420. doi: 10.1080/01443610802149954.

17. Grigoriadis T, Valla A, Zacharakis D et al. Va­ginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse: what is the incidence of concurrent gynecological malignancy? Int Urogynecol J 2015; 26 (3): 421–425. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2516-5.

18. Ackenbom MF, Giugale LE, Wang Y et al. Incidence of occult uterine pathology in women undergoing hysterectomy with pelvic organ prolapse repair. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2016; 22 (5): 332–335. doi: 10.1097/SPV.000000 0000000283.

19. Frick AC, Walters MD, Larkin KS et al. Risk of unanticipated abnormal gynecologic patho­logy at the time of hysterectomy for uterovagi- nal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202 (5):  507.e1–504.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.077.

20. Renganathan A, Edwards R, Duckett JR. Uterus conserving prolapse surgery – what is the chance of missing a malignancy? Int Urogynecol J 2010; 21 (7): 819–821. doi: 10.1007/ s00192-010-1101-9.

21. Andy U, Nosti P, Kane Set al. Incidence of unanticipated uterine pathology at the time of minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21 (1): 97–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.008.

22. Mizrachi Y, Tannus S, Bar J et al. Unexpected significant uterine pathological findingsat vagi­nal hysterectomy despite unremarkable preo­perative workup. Isr Med Assoc 2017; 19 (10): 631–634.

23. Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D, Domali E et al. A thin and regular endometrium on ultrasound is very unlikely in patients with endometrial malignancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29 (6): 674–679. doi: 10.1002/uog.4031.

Štítky
Dětská gynekologie Gynekologie a porodnictví Reprodukční medicína

Článek vyšel v časopise

Česká gynekologie

Číslo 1

2022 Číslo 1

Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
Přihlášení
Zapomenuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se

Zapomenuté heslo

Zadejte e-mailovou adresu, se kterou jste vytvářel(a) účet, budou Vám na ni zaslány informace k nastavení nového hesla.

Přihlášení

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se