AJR Not a Member? Click to Join ARRS!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DiSantis, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Cramer, M. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by DiSantis, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Cramer, M. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 161, 91-94, Copyright © 1993 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

A prospective evaluation of transvaginal sonography for detection of ovarian disease

DJ DiSantis, JC Scatarige, G Kemp, FT Given, JG Hsiu and MS Cramer
Department of Radiology, DePaul Medical Center, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk 23505.

OBJECTIVE. Despite the expanding role of transvaginal sonography in routine gynecologic examinations, as well as in screening for ovarian cancer, recent reports have noted problems when using the procedure for detecting ovarian masses and visualizing the ovaries in postmenopausal women. Our study was designed to assess prospectively the capability of transvaginal sonography in evaluating the ovary and detecting adnexal masses. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Transvaginal sonography was used to examine 113 ovaries in 59 women within 72 hr before gynecologic surgery. Ovarian size and echo texture were assessed, and a search was made for adnexal masses. Sonograms were interpreted without knowledge of the clinical history or results of physical examination, and the sonographic findings were compared with surgical and pathologic data. RESULTS. In the 22 premenopausal patients, 16 (76%) of 21 histologically normal ovaries were identified on sonograms, but only 13 (59%) of 22 adnexal masses. Lesions as large as 177 cm3 were not detected. In the 37 postmenopausal patients, 12 (20%) of 59 normal ovaries and six (54%) of 11 adnexal masses were identified. Five malignant masses (largest, 113 cm3) were not detected. CONCLUSION. In this selected population, our ability to detect normal postmenopausal ovaries and ovarian masses was suboptimal in a number of cases. Practitioners should be aware of potential limitations in the use of this technique alone to evaluate the ovary.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
S. Adusumilli, H. K. Hussain, E. M. Caoili, W. J. Weadock, J. P. Murray, T. D. Johnson, Q. Chen, and B. Desjardins
MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses.
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2006; 187(3): 732 - 740.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
S. Jonard, Y. Robert, and D. Dewailly
Revisiting the ovarian volume as a diagnostic criterion for polycystic ovaries
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2005; 20(10): 2893 - 2898.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
Y.-Y. Jeong, E. K. Outwater, and H. K. Kang
Imaging Evaluation of Ovarian Masses
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2000; 20(5): 1445 - 1470.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.