Accuracy of Preoperative Sonographic Adnexal Fixation for Prediction of Pelvic Adhesion in Gynecologic Surgery

Main Article Content

Nuntorn Chukasemrat http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2991-8806 Pornpun Phasipol Maethaphan Kitporntheranunt Somphoch Pumipichet Kittipong Kongsomboon

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the accuracy of preoperative sonographic adnexal fixation for prediction of pelvic adhesion in gynecologic surgery.
Materials and Methods: This was a descriptive study of 106 gynecologic patients who were scheduled for elective abdominal surgery. Preoperative sonographic adnexal fixation was done. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonographic findings suspecting pelvic adhesion, including at least one side of adnexal fixation, in predicting intraoperative adnexal adhesion was calculated. Pelvic adhesion risk factors were also collected.
Results: Sonographic adnexal fixation was found in 81 adnexa. Ipsilateral adnexal adhesion was found intraoperatively in 78 adnexa of this study. Overall, pelvic adhesion prediction based on ultrasonographic finding had an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 74.4, 69.2, 77.7, 66.7 and 79.7 percent respectively. History of pelvic infection and dysmenorrhea were positively correlated with pelvic adhesion (Adjusted OR, 3.50; 95%CI, 1.26-9.75; p = 0.016 and adjusted OR, 2.47; 95%CI, 1.37-4.46; p = 0.003 respectively). However, combined a history of pelvic infection and dysmenorrhea with an ultrasonographic finding showed the most correlation with pelvic adhesion.
Conclusion: Preoperative adnexal fixation on transvaginal ultrasonography accurately identified patients with pelvic adhesions. Furthermore, history of pelvic infection and dysmenorrhea could increase the ability to predict pelvic adhesion.


Keywords: pelvic adhesion, transvaginal ultrasound, prediction, accuracy.

Keywords

Article Details

Section
Original Article
Author Biographies

Nuntorn Chukasemrat, Srinakharinwirot University

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Ongkharak, NakhonNayok 26120, Thailand.

Pornpun Phasipol, Srinakharinwirot University

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Ongkharak, NakhonNayok 26120, Thailand.

Maethaphan Kitporntheranunt, Srinakharinwirot University

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Ongkharak, NakhonNayok 26120, Thailand.

Somphoch Pumipichet, Srinakharinwirot University

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Ongkharak, NakhonNayok 26120, Thailand.

Kittipong Kongsomboon, Srinakharinwirot University

Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Ongkharak, NakhonNayok 26120, Thailand.

References

1. Garry R, Fountain J, Mason S, Hawe J, Napp V, Abbott J, et al.The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy. BNJ 2004; 328:1-7.
2. Kumakiri J, Kikuchi I, Kitade M, Kuroda K, Matsuoka S, Tokita S, et al. Incidence of Complications during Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery in Patients after Previous Laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010;17:480-6.
3. ten Broek RP, Issa Y, van Santbrink EJ, Bouvy ND, Kruitwagen RF, Jeekel J, et al. Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery:systematic review and met-analysis. BMJ 2013;347:1-15.
4. Brüggmann D, Tchartchian G, Wallwiener M, Münstedt K, Tinneberg HR, Hackethal A. Intra-abdominal Adhesions. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107:769–75.
5. Pfeifer S, Lobo R, Goldberg J, Thomas M, Pisarska M, Widra E, et al, Pathogenesis, consequences, and control of peritoneal adhesions in gynecologic surgery: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1550-5.
6. Barbul A, Efron DT, Kavalukas SL. Wound healing. In: Brunicardi FC, Andersen DK, Billiar TR, Dunn DL, Hunnter JG, Matthews JB, Pollock RE,editor. Schwartz, principles of surgery. 10th ed. United States of America: McGraw-Hill; 2010:241-66.
7. Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Garau N, Alcazar JL, Mais V, Melis GB. Diagnosis pelvic adhesion in patients with endometrioma: the role of transvaginal ultrasonogrphy. Fertil Steril 2010;94:742-6.
8. Preutthipan S, Hesla JS. A comparative study between pelvic ultrasonography and laparoscopy in the detection of pelvic pathology in the initial workup of subfertile women. J Med Assoc Thai 1995;71:596-9.
9. Kothari SN, Fundell LJ, Lambert PJ, Mathiason MA.Use of transabdominal ultrasound to identify intraabdominal adhesions prior to laparoscopy: a prospective blinded study. Am J Surg 2006;192:843–7.
10. Nezhat C, Cho J, Morozov V, Yeung P. Preoperative periumbilical ultrasound-guided saline infusion(PUGSI) as a tool predicting obliterating subumbilical adhesion in laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2714-9.
11. Ubaldi F, Wisanto A, Camus M, Tournaye H, Clasen K, Devroey P. The role of transvaginal ultrasonography in the detection pelvic pathologies in the infertility workup. Hum Reprod 1998;13:330-3.
12. Gurerriero S, Ajossa S, Lai MP, Mais V, Paoletti AM, Melis GB. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of pelvic adhesions. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2649–53.
13. Ghonge NP, Ghonge SD. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of pelvic peritoneal adhesions: What radiologists need to know? Indian J Radiol Imaging 2014;24:149-55.
14. Lienemann A, Sprenger D, Steitz HO, Korell M, Reiser M. Detection and mapping of intraabdominal adhesions by using functional cine MR Imaging: Preliminary results. Radiology 2000;217:421-5.
15. Buhmann-Kirchhoff S, Lang R, Kirchhoff C, Steitz HO, Jauch KW, Reiser M, et al. Functional cine MR imaging for the detection and mapping of intraabdominal adhesions: method and surgical correlation. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1215–23.
16. Hanprsertpong T. Ultrsound in obsterics and gynecological emergency. 2nd ed. Songkla: Book unit, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University; 2013. 18-61.
17. Naing L, Winn T, Rusli BN. Practical Issues in Calculating the Sample Size for Prevalence Studies. Arch Orofac Sci 2006;1:9-14.