Preimplantation 3D ultrasound: current uses and challenges

References

[1] Exacoustos C, Luciano D, Corbett B, De Felice G, Di Feliciantonio M, Luciano A, et al. The uterine junctional zone: a 3-dimensional ultrasound study of patients with endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:248.e1–7.10.1016/j.ajog.2013.06.006Search in Google Scholar

[2] Sakhel K, Benson CB, Platt LD, Goldstein SR, Benacerraf BR. Begin with the basics: role of 3-dimensional sonography as a first-line imaging technique in the cost-effective evaluation of gynecologic pelvic disease. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:381–8.10.7863/jum.2013.32.3.381Search in Google Scholar

[3] Reid S, Lu C, Casikar I, Reid G, Abbott J, Cario G, et al. Prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration in women with suspected endometriosis using a new real-time dynamic transvaginal ultrasound technique: The sliding sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:685–91.10.1002/uog.12305Search in Google Scholar

[4] Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Luciano AA. Contrast ultrasonography for tubal patency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:994–8.10.1016/j.jmig.2014.05.017Search in Google Scholar

[5] Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:24.10.1186/1755-8166-5-24Search in Google Scholar

[6] Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: A systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:371–82.10.1002/uog.10056Search in Google Scholar

[7] Seshadri S, El-Toukhy T, Douiri A, Jayaprakasan K, Khalaf Y. Diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography in the evaluation of uterine cavity abnormalities prior to assisted reproductive techniques: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21:262–74.10.1093/humupd/dmu057Search in Google Scholar

[8] Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:808–13.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.086Search in Google Scholar

[9] Homer HA, Li T-C, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1–14.10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00480-XSearch in Google Scholar

[10] Kupešić S, Kurjak A, Skenderovic S, Bjelos D. Screening for uterine abnormalities by three-dimensional ultrasound improves perinatal outcome. J Perinat Med. 2002;30:9–17.10.1515/JPM.2002.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:22–42.10.1016/j.jmig.2012.09.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Troiano RN. Magnetic resonance imaging of mullerian duct anomalies of the uterus. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;14:269–79.10.1097/00002142-200308000-00002Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Jurkovic D, Geipel, A, Gruboeck K, Jauniaux, E, Natucci M, Campbell S. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingog- raphy and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol. 1995;5:233–7.10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05040233.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Kudla M, Pitynski K, Banas T, Jach R, 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;101:1392–9.e4.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.01.039Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, et al. The ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10:199–212.10.1007/s10397-013-0800-xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[16] Ergenoglu AM, Sahin C, Simsek D, Akdemir A, Yeniel AÖ, Yerli H, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis in surgically proven M?llerian duct anomaly cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;197:22–6.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.11.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Graupera B, Pascual M, Hereter L, Browne JL, Úbeda B, Rodríguez I, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol. 2015;46:616–22.10.1002/uog.14825Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Bermejo C, Martínez-Ten P, Recio M, Ruiz-Lõpez L, Díaz D, Illescas T. Three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging assessment of cervix and vagina in women with uterine malformations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:336–45.10.1002/uog.12536Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Ludwin A, Pityński K, Ludwin I, Banas T, Knafel A. 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;20:90–9.10.1016/j.jmig.2012.09.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Moini A, Mohammadi S, Hosseini R, Eslami B, Ahmadi F. Accuracy of 3-dimensional sonography for diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:923–7.10.7863/ultra.32.6.923Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Faivre E, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, Gervaise A, Frydman R, Levaillant JM. 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;19:101–6.10.1016/j.jmig.2011.08.724Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Bermejo C, Martinez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Pérez Pedregosa J, Barrón E, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol. 2010;35:593–601.10.1002/uog.7551Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] El-Mazny A, Abou-Salem N, El-Sherbiny W, Saber W. Outpatient hysteroscopy: A routine investigation before assisted reproductive techniques? Fertil Steril. 2011;95:272–6.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.06.033Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Apirakviriya C, Rungruxsirivorn T, Phupong V, Wisawasukmongchol W. Diagnostic accuracy of 3D-transvaginal ultrasound in detecting uterine cavity abnormalities in infertile patients as compared with hysteroscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;200:24–8.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.01.023Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Pérez-Medina T, Bajo-Arenas J, Salazar F, Redondo T, Sanfrutos L, Alvarez P, et al. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1632–5.10.1093/humrep/deh822Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Hooker AB, Lemmers M, Thurkow AL, Heymans MW, Opmeer BC, Brölmann HA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrauterine adhesions after miscarriage: prevalence, risk factors and long-term reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;20:262–78.10.1093/humupd/dmt045Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] Kim MJ, Lee Y, Lee C, Chun S, Kim A, Kim HY, et al. Accuracy of three dimensional ultrasound and treatment outcomes of intrauterine adhesion in infertile women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;54:737–41.10.1016/j.tjog.2015.10.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[28] El-Sherbiny W, El-Mazny A, Abou-Salem N, Mostafa WS. The diagnostic accuracy of two- vs three-dimensional sonohysterography for evaluation of the uterine cavity in the reproductive Age. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:127–31.10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.779Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] Ferenczy A. Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:312–22.10.1093/humupd/4.4.312Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio a, Wang L, Atri M, Siegelman ES, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1999;19:Spec No:S147–S160.10.1148/radiographics.19.suppl_1.g99oc13s147Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[31] Puente JM, Fabris A, Patel J, Patel A, Cerrillo M, Requena A, et al. Adenomyosis in infertile women: prevalence and the role of 3D ultrasound as a marker of severity of the disease. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:60.10.1186/s12958-016-0185-6Search in Google Scholar

[32] Vercellini P, Consonni D, Dridi D, Bracco B, Frattaruolo MP, Somigliana E. Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:964–77.10.1093/humrep/deu041Search in Google Scholar

[33] Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Albrecht L, LaMonica R, Proffer A, Zupi E, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis of adenomyosis: Histologic correlation with ultrasound targeted biopsies of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:803–10.10.1016/j.jmig.2013.05.002Search in Google Scholar

[34] Chopra S, Lev-Toaff AS, Ors F, Bergin D. Adenomyosis:common and uncommon manifestations on sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25:617–27.10.7863/jum.2006.25.5.617Search in Google Scholar

[35] Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sørensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:588–94.10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01962-8Search in Google Scholar

[36] Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427–33.10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427Search in Google Scholar

[37] Pritts EA, Parker WH, Olive DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1215–23.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.051Search in Google Scholar

[38] Cicinelli E, Romano F, Silvio Anastasio P, Blasi N, Parisi C, Galantino P. Transabdominal sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysteroscopy in the evaluation of submucous myomas. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:42–7.10.1016/0029-7844(94)00298-RSearch in Google Scholar

[39] Bingol B, Gunenc Z, Gedikbasi A, Guner H, Tasdemir S, Tiras B. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:54–8.10.3109/01443615.2010.532246Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] Kupesic S, Bekavac I, Bjelos D, Kurjak A. Assessment of endometrial receptivity by transvaginal color Doppler and three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization procedures. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20:125–34.10.7863/jum.2001.20.2.125Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[41] El-Zenneni H, Moustafa R, Abdel-Hafeez M, El-Salally H, Abdel-Kader A, Elnaggar A. Assessment of uterine, subendometrial blood flows and endometrial gland vascular endothelial growth factor (EG-VEGF) in women with unexplained infertility. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2015;20:119–26.10.1016/j.mefs.2014.07.002Search in Google Scholar

[42] Yu J, Cai M, Liang W, Deng Z, Xie Y. Diagnostic efficacy of 3-D hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography in the detection of tubal occlusion: Systematic meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41:1418–25.10.1111/jog.12728Search in Google Scholar

[43] Tsiami A, Chaimani A, Mavridis D, Siskou M, Assimakopoulos, E Sotiriadis A. Surgical treatment for hydrosalpinx prior to in-vitro fertilization embryo transfer: a network meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol. 2016;48:434–45.10.1002/uog.15900Search in Google Scholar

[44] Andreotti RF, Fleischer AC. Practical applications of 3D sonography in gynecologic imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014;52:1201–13.10.1016/j.rcl.2014.07.001Search in Google Scholar

[45] Hudelist G, Fritzer N, Staettner S, Tammaa A, Tinelli A, Sparic R, et al. Uterine sliding sign: A simple sonographic predictor for presence of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:692–5.10.1002/uog.12431Search in Google Scholar

[46] Hudelist G, English J, Thomas AE, Tinelli A, Singer CF, Keckstein J. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for non-invasive diagnosis of bowel endometriosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:257–63.10.1002/uog.8858Search in Google Scholar

[47] Kurjak A, Kupesic S. Scoring system for prediction of ovarian endometriosis based on transvaginal color and pulsed Doppler sonography. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:81–8.10.1016/S0015-0282(16)56820-4Search in Google Scholar

[48] Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Predictors of IVF outcome by three-dimensional ultrasound. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:950–5.10.1093/humrep/17.4.950Search in Google Scholar

[49] Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Bjelos D, Vujisic S. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic ovarian measurements and in vitro fertilization outcome are related to age. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:190–7.10.1016/S0015-0282(02)04567-3Search in Google Scholar

[50] Rosen MP, Shen S, Dobson AT, Rinaudo PF, McCulloch CE, Cedars MI. A quantitative assessment of follicle size on oocyte developmental competence. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:684–90.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central