Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on January 13, 2005
Human Reproduction 2005 20(4):1107-1111; doi:10.1093/humrep/deh689
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/4/1107    most recent
deh689v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ben-Ami, I.
Right arrow Articles by Halperin, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ben-Ami, I.
Right arrow Articles by Halperin, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved.

Sonographic versus clinical evaluation as predictors of residual trophoblastic tissue

Ido Ben-Ami1, David Schneider, Ron Maymon, Zvika Vaknin, Arie Herman and Reuvit Halperin

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin (affiliated with Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv), Israel

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, 70300, Israel. Email: idorit{at}netvision.net.il

BACKGROUND: The study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of sonographic evaluation versus clinical estimation in women suspected to have retained trophoblastic fragments. METHODS: The study group consisted of 68 consecutive patients admitted to our department due to suspected residual trophoblastic tissue. Each woman underwent ultrasound and physical examination by expert clinicians. The clinicians performing the physical examination were not informed of the sonographic findings, and vice versa. RESULTS: Patients were divided into three subgroups: clinical suspicion only of residual trophoblastic tissue (n=8), sonographic suspicion only (n=44) and combined sonographic and clinical suspicion of residual trophoblastic tissue (n=16). In the latter group, in 14 out of 16 women (87.5%) retained trophoblastic tissue was confirmed by histological examination, a significantly higher rate compared to ultrasonographic (45.5%, P<0.002) or clinical suspicion only (62.5%, P=0.07). The specificity and positive predictive value of the clinical examination were significantly higher compared to ultrasonographic evaluation (P<0.05), while the sensitivity of the ultrasonographic evaluation was higher than the clinical estimation (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the negative predictive value or in diagnostic accuracy between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our current experience, it seems that the combination of both clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation is recommended before uterine curettage is performed, thus lowering the rate of unnecessary invasive procedures.

Key words: clinical estimation/diagnostic accuracy/residual trophoblastic tissue/sensitivity and specificity/transvaginal sonography


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
T. van den Bosch, A. Daemen, D. Van Schoubroeck, N. Pochet, B. De Moor, and D. Timmerman
Occurrence and Outcome of Residual Trophoblastic Tissue: A Prospective Study
J. Ultrasound Med., March 1, 2008; 27(3): 357 - 361.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.