Hu HJ, Sun J, Feng R, Yu L. Comparison of the application value of transvaginal ultrasound and transabdominal ultrasound in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. World J Clin Cases 2023; 11(13): 2945-2955 [PMID: 37215424 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i13.2945]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Liang Yu, MM, Associate Chief Physician, Department of Radiology, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, People’s Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, 158 Shangtang Road, Hangzhou 310000, Zhejiang Province, China. 422086056@qq.com
Research Domain of This Article
Medicine, General & Internal
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. May 6, 2023; 11(13): 2945-2955 Published online May 6, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i13.2945
Table 1 Comparison of general data in each group, n (%)
Group
Age (years), mean ± SD
Multiparas
Primipara
Urine HCG (weak) positive
Blood HCG (weak) positive
TAS group (n = 63)
35.57 ± 3.65
24 (38.10)
39 (61.90)
58 (92.06)
60 (95.23)
TVS group (n = 77)
35.56 ± 3.78
34 (44.16)
43 (55.84)
72 (93.51)
75 (97.40)
T/χ2
0.017
0.581
0.399
P value
0.987
0.469
0.310
Table 2 Comparison of the accuracy and misdiagnosis rate of the two methods
Group
Consistent with the diagnosis
Misdiagnosis
Accuracy rate
TAS group (n = 63)
56
7
88.89
TVS group (n = 77)
75
2
97.40
χ2
0.090
0.036
P value
0.041
0.017
Table 3 Comparison of the coincidence rate between the results of different examination methods and postoperative pathological examination
Type
Consistent with the diagnosis
TAS group
TVS group
χ2
P
Ovarian pregnancy
58
54 (93.10)
56 (96.55)
-
-
Tubal pregnancy
20
7 (35.00)
16 (80.00)
0.011
0.004
Cervical pregnancy
15
13 (86.67)
13 (86.67)
-
-
Scarred uterine pregnancy
12
10 (83.33)
11 (91.67)
-
-
Abdominal pregnancy
11
10 (90.91)
11 (100.00)
-
-
Uterine stump pregnancy
9
8 (88.89)
8 (88.89)
-
-
Cornual pregnancy
15
13 (86.67)
14 (93.33)
-
-
Total
140
115 (82.14)
129 (92.14)
0.020
0.012
Table 4 Comparison of sonographic performance differences between two types of ultrasounds for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy
TAS group (n = 63)
TVS group (n = 77)
χ2
P
Extrauterine mixed mass
17 (26.98)
34 (44.16)
0.054
0.036
Ectopic gestational sac shadow
43 (68.25)
65 (84.42)
0.039
0.023
Uterine rectal fossa fluid
15 (23.81)
8 (10.39)
0.057
0.033
Fetal heart and embryo in the shadow of ectopic gestational sac
45 (71.43)
66 (85.71)
0.062
0.038
Adnexal area
12 (19.05)
27 (35.06)
0.056
0.035
Yolk sac
52 (82.54)
73 (94.81)
0.039
0.020
Consistent with the diagnosis
152 (82.61)
231 (84.62)
0.062
0.045
Table 5 Comparison of diagnosis time and days of gestational sac appearance (mean ± SD)
Group
Diagnosis time
Days of gestational sac appearance
Operation time
TAS group (n = 63)
38.24 ± 6.27
32.56 ± 5.35
42.33 ± 4.65
TVS group (n = 77)
34.56 ± 6.21
28.67 ± 5.54
32.59 ± 4.31
T
3.473
4.197
12.838
P value
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Table 6 Comparison of endometrial thickness and blood flow resistance
Detection Method
Endometrial thickness
Blood flow resistance in the endometrium
≤ 1.5 mm
≥ 1.5 mm
≤ 0.5
≥ 0.5
TAS group (n = 63)
36 (57.14)
27 (42.86)
24 (38.10)
39 (61.90)
TVS group (n = 77)
46 (59.74)
31 (40.26)
43 (55.84)
34 (44.16)
χ2
1.096
4.374
P value
0.019
0.036
Citation: Hu HJ, Sun J, Feng R, Yu L. Comparison of the application value of transvaginal ultrasound and transabdominal ultrasound in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. World J Clin Cases 2023; 11(13): 2945-2955