Godfroy M, Lopes P, Le Vaillant C. A Pilot Study Comparing 2- and 3-dimensional Ultrasound Imaging for Confirmation of Essure Fallopian Tube Pregnancy Prevention Implants.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;
26:1117-1124. [PMID:
30428382 DOI:
10.1016/j.jmig.2018.07.025]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2018] [Revised: 07/28/2018] [Accepted: 07/31/2018] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To show the feasibility of 2-dimensional (2D) ultrasound (US) imaging compared with 3-dimensional (3D) US to identify the location of implants and assess if the classification developed by Simorre et al in 2016 was applicable to the 2 types of US imaging (i.e., 2D and 3D).
DESIGN
A prospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING
The department of obstetrics and gynecology in a teaching hospital.
PATIENTS
One hundred fifty patients who had undergone hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure (Bayer Pharma AG Laboratory, Lyon, France) fallopian tube pregnancy prevention implants were invited by letter to participate in the study; 50 replied positively between January and August 2017.
INTERVENTIONS
An initial 2D US was performed followed by 3D US reconstruction. The primary end point was to compare the identification of device placement with 2D and 3D US imaging procedures according to this new classification. Secondary considerations were to evaluate the difficulty of attaining images, the quality of implant curvature, the duration of each imaging procedure, and the number of images performed for each technique.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
Ninety-six percent of tubal implants were observed via 3D US compared with 100% via 2D US. The mean time of 2D US was 14.64 seconds for the right fallopian tube and 15.25 seconds for the left fallopian tube compared with 25.11 seconds for the right and 31.57 seconds for the left fallopian tube in 3D US (p <.01). The mean number of image acquisitions per patient was 1.02 (±0.14 standard deviation) for 2D US compared with 1.37 (±0.64 standard deviation) for 3D US (p <.01). The sonographer had no difficulty performing 2D US in 88% of cases compared with 58% of 3D US cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Two-dimensional ultrasound appears to be an acceptable alternative to 3D US. We propose a 2D classification for cross section device localization to facilitate image interpretation.
Collapse