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.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?