Sonographic Assessment of Uterine Biometry for the Diagnosis of Diffuse Adenomyosis in a Tertiary Outpatient Clinic
- PMID: 36294711
- PMCID: PMC9604640
- DOI: 10.3390/jpm12101572
Sonographic Assessment of Uterine Biometry for the Diagnosis of Diffuse Adenomyosis in a Tertiary Outpatient Clinic
Abstract
Background: to compare several uterine biometric parameters at transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) between adenomyosis and non-adenomyosis uteri and evaluate their role for the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis.
Methods: prospective observational study conducted between the 1 February 2022 and the 30 April 2022. In this case, 56 patients with TVUS diagnosis of adenomyosis were included. A 1:1 ratio age and parity-matched group of non-adenomyosis patients was selected. We compared sonographic uterine biometric parameters (longitudinal (LD), anteroposterior (APD) and transverse (TD) diameters, volume, simple and complex diameter ratios) and investigated their diagnostic performance.
Results: all sonographic parameters were significantly different between the study groups, except for TD/(LD+APD). Optimal cut-off values of APD and LD/APD showed the best sensitivity and specificity. APD diameter equal or superior to 39.5 mm (95% CI, 36.2-42.8) had sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57-0.80), specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.59-0.82) and accuracy of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66-0.84). LD/APD equal or inferior to 2.05 (95% CI, 1.96-2.13) showed sensitivity and specificity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57-0.80) each and accuracy of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81).
Conclusions: several biometric uterine parameters at TVUS in fertile-aged women were statistically different between adenomyosis and non-adenomyosis uteri, though their optimal cut-off values showed low accuracy in diagnosing adenomyosis.
Keywords: adenomyosis; biometry; diagnosis; globular uterus; ultrasonography; ultrasound.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures




Similar articles
-
Application of Deep Learning Model in the Sonographic Diagnosis of Uterine Adenomyosis.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jan 18;20(3):1724. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20031724. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023. PMID: 36767092 Free PMC article.
-
Question Mark Sign and Transvaginal Ultrasound Uterine Tenderness for the Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: A Prospective Validation.J Ultrasound Med. 2020 Jul;39(7):1405-1412. doi: 10.1002/jum.15237. Epub 2020 Feb 7. J Ultrasound Med. 2020. PMID: 32030800
-
Comparison of Sensitivity and Specificity of Structured and Narrative Reports of Transvaginal Ultrasonogaphy for Adenomyosis.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Jun;28(6):1216-1224. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.11.001. Epub 2020 Nov 15. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 33207253
-
Transvaginal Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Feb;25(2):257-264. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.653. Epub 2017 Aug 30. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018. PMID: 28864044
-
Noninvasive Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: A Structured Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy in Imaging.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Feb;27(2):408-418.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.11.001. Epub 2019 Nov 8. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020. PMID: 31712162
Cited by
-
Uterine anteroposterior diameter predicts spontaneous pregnancy outcomes in women under 35 years with adenomyosis: a retrospective study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025 Jul 4;25(1):727. doi: 10.1186/s12884-025-07828-1. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025. PMID: 40615802 Free PMC article.
-
How Reproducible Are the Ultrasound Features of Adenomyosis Defined by the Revised MUSA Consensus?J Clin Med. 2025 Jan 13;14(2):456. doi: 10.3390/jcm14020456. J Clin Med. 2025. PMID: 39860462 Free PMC article.
References
-
- van den Bosch T., Dueholm M., Leone F.P.G., Valentin L., Rasmussen C.K., Votino A., Van Schoubroeck D., Landolfo C., Installé A.J., Guerriero S., et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: A consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015;46:284–298. doi: 10.1002/uog.14806. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Exacoustos C., Morosetti G., Conway F., Camilli S., Martire F.G., Lazzeri L., Piccione E., Zupi E. New Sonographic Clas-sification of Adenomyosis: Do Type and Degree of Adenomyosis Correlate to Severity of Symptoms? J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:1308–1315. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.788. - DOI - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous