Office Hysteroscopy Versus Three-Dimensional Ultrasound in Assessment of Uterine Cavity in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss
Mohamed Atef Farag,Mahmoud Salah Mahmoud,Rashed Mohamed Rashed,Mohamed Farag,Mahmoud Mahmoud
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/ijma.2020.25674.1110
2020-05-27
International Journal of Medical Arts
Abstract:Background: Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is one of the most frustrating and difficult areas in reproductive medicine. Aim of the work: This prospective study aims to evaluate the roles of ultrasound and hysteroscopy in recurrent pregnancy loss. Patients and Methods: A total of 100 patients who had a history of two or more RPL had been included. All patients had been subjected to complete history taking, thorough clinical and gynecological examination, three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound and hysteroscopy. Results: The mean age was 27.43 years. In addition, 45% of the included females had two previous RPL while 55% of them had three or more RPL. Hysteroscopy revealed normal findings in 80 cases (80%), endometrial polyp in 7%, submucous myoma in 3%, uterine septum in 6%, and uterine synechiae in 4%. On the other side, three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US), normal findings had been detected in 83 cases (83%), endometrial polyp in 6%, submucous myoma in 3%, uterine septum in 5%, bicornuate uterus in 1%, and uterine synechiae in 2%. There was a statistically significant correlation between the two techniques in detection of the uterine findings in cases of RPL (p =0.001). Conclusion: Three-dimensional ultrasonography is the best tool for diagnosis of different types of Mullerian duct anomalies whereas hysteroscopy is better in diagnosis of intracavitary lesions.