Diagnostic Accuracy of Transvaginal Ultrasound (TVS) in Diagnosing Müllerian Duct Anomalies Keeping Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) as Gold Standard
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i7.2703Keywords:
Congenital Abnormalities, Diagnostic Imaging, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasonography, Müllerian Ducts, TransvaginalAbstract
Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound in diagnosing Müllerian duct anomalies by using magnetic resonance imaging as the gold standard. Study Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study. Duration and Place of Study: This study was conducted from 2 March 2025 to 2 June 2025 at the Department of Radiology, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro. Methodology: A total of 348 female patients aged 20–45 years presenting with pelvic pain or infertility were included. All patients underwent transvaginal ultrasound followed by magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis. Findings of both imaging modalities were recorded separately. Magnetic resonance imaging was taken as the reference standard. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 22. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound were calculated using a 2 × 2 contingency table. Results: The mean age of patients was 32.16 ± 7.64 years, and the mean duration of symptoms was 24.46 ± 13.81 months. Transvaginal ultrasound detected Müllerian duct anomalies in 24.7% patients, while magnetic resonance imaging confirmed anomalies in 14.9% patients. Sensitivity of transvaginal ultrasound was 50%, specificity was 79.70%, and overall diagnostic accuracy was 75.30%. Conclusion: Transvaginal ultrasound shows moderate diagnostic accuracy in detecting Müllerian duct anomalies.
Downloads
References
1. Dahiphale SM, Potdar J, Acharya N, Jyotsna G, Saloni, Desale R. Congenital anomalies of the female genital tract: a comprehensive review. Cureus. 2024;16(3):e56753.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.56753
2. Jayaprakasan K, Ojha K. Diagnosis of congenital uterine abnormalities: practical considerations. J Clin Med. 2022;11(5):1251.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051251
3. Kim MA, Kim HS, Kim YH. Reproductive, obstetric and neonatal outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(21):4797.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214797
4. Bhamidipaty-Pelosi S, Kyei-Barffour I, Volpert M, O’Neill N, Grimshaw A, Eriksson L, et al. Müllerian anomalies and endometriosis: associations and phenotypic variations. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024;22(1):157.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-024-01336-1
5. Valdez-Sinon AN, Toscano MA, Baker VL, Segars J, Kohn JR. Multimodal radiographic diagnosis of a complex Müllerian anomaly: a case report. Cureus. 2024;16(8):e67967.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.67967
6. Oppelt P, Binder H, Birraux J, Brucker S, Dingeldein I, Draths R, et al. Diagnosis and therapy of female genital malformations (part 2). Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k level, AWMF registry number 015/052). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2021;81(12):1329-1347.
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1471-4988
7. Dixit R, Duggireddy CS, Pradhan GS. Mullerian anomalies: revisiting imaging and classification. Insights Imaging. 2025;16(1):40.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-024-01879-2
8. Vichinsartvichai P, Lertlerphant S, Ratchanon S. Prevalence of dysmorphic uterus in infertile women by 3D-TVUS: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2025;23(1):137.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-025-01472-2
9. Cooper N, Meehan H, Linton-Reid K, Barcroft J, Danin J, Seah M, et al. Clinical utility of ultrasonography in pediatric and adolescent gynecology: retrospective review of 1313 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2025;65(2):226-234.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.29155
10. Javalgi AA, Bagri N, Bhayana A, Misra R. Imaging approach to infertility. J Gastrointest Abdom Radiol ISGAR. 2025;online:1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1809653
11. Okonkwo IO, Eleje GU, Obiechina NJ, Ugboaja JO, Okafor CO, Mbachu II, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography and hysterosalpingography in the detection of uterine cavity pathologies among infertile women. Acta Radiol Open. 2024;13(5):20584601241252335. https://doi.org/10.1177/20584601241252335
12. Zhang B, Wu S, Zhao X, Zhu X, Xu D. Diagnosis of septate uterus. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2022;47(11):1479-1486. https://doi.org/10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2022.220507
13. Caliskan E, Ozkan S, Cakiroglu Y, Sarisoy HT, Corakci A, Ozeren S. Diagnostic accuracy of real-time 3D sonography in the diagnosis of congenital Mullerian anomalies in high-risk patients with respect to the phase of the menstrual cycle. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;38(3):123-127.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.20662
14. Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(2):808-813.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.086
15. Bermejo C, Martínez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Pérez Pedregosa J, Barrón E, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:593-601.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7603
16. Chapidze I, Kristesashvili J, Kutateladze M, Matitashvili S. Diagnostic capabilities for Müllerian anomalies in women with reproductive disorders. Med Ultrason. 2025;online:1-8.
https://doi.org/10.11152/mu.2025.12345
17. Senger KPS, Singh AK, Sharma V, Singh A, Ravikumar R. Detection of müllerian duct anomalies: diagnostic utility of two-dimensional ultrasonography as compared to magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:20-28.
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20164421
18. Alcázar JL, Carriles I, Cajas MB, Costa S, Fabra S, Cabrero M, et al. Diagnostic performance of two-dimensional ultrasound, two-dimensional sonohysterography and three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of septate uterus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics. 2023;13:807. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040807
19. Canzone G, Parlato M, Triolo L. 2D-3D ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;1(3):77-79.
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1111
20. Shiva M, Ahmadi F, Arabipoor A, Oromiehchi M, Chehrazi M. Accuracy of two-dimensional transvaginal sonography and office hysteroscopy for detection of uterine abnormalities in patients with repeated implantation failures or recurrent pregnancy loss. Int J Fertil Steril. 2018;11:287-292.
21. Negm SM, Kamel RA, El-Zayat HA, Elbigawy AF, El-Toukhy MM, Amin AH, et al. The value of three-dimensional ultrasound in identifying Müllerian anomalies at risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;online:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1815189
22. Shaikh Fayazoddin LA, Rathi G, Chitnis A, Patil G. A case series of müllerian duct anomalies – the diagnostic journey. Int J Med Sci Clin Res Rev. 2025;8:361-372.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
