<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">605493936</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20210128100523.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">210128e20150301xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1007/s00261-014-0243-5</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s00261-014-0243-5</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Routine vs. expert-guided transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis of endometriosis: A retrospective review</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[Margaret Fraser, Sugandha Agarwal, Innie Chen, Sukhbir Singh]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity of routine trans vaginal ultrasound (TVUS) compared to expert-guided transvaginal ultrasound (ETVUS) for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Methods: A retrospective chart review performed at a Canadian tertiary center specializing in the diagnosis and management of endometriosis. All cases with surgically confirmed endometriosis and an ETVUS completed at a single center were included for review and compared to routine TVUS performed for the same indication. Results: Forty cases met the inclusion criteria. Mean patient age of the study population at first surgical diagnosis was 31.2±6.9years. Dysmenorrhea (76.9%) and chronic pelvic pain (74.3%) were the most common presenting symptoms. Sensitivity of routine TVUS was 25% (10/40), compared to 78% (31/40) with ETVUS, (P&lt;0.01). Comparisons were made based on site of disease. Routine TVUS and ETVUS detected bladder involvement in (0/40) vs. 5% (2/40); ureter (0/40) vs. 7.5% (3/40); ovary 25% (10/40) vs. 72.5% (29/40); retrocervical area (0/40) vs. 60% (24/40), rectosigmoid 5% (2/40) vs. 77.5% (31/40), respectively. Specific endometriotic lesions recognized by TVUS versus ETVUS, were: ovarian endometriomas in 25% (10/40) vs. 45% (18/40), adhesions leading to abnormal anatomy in 2.5% (1/40) vs. 77.5% (31/40); endometriotic implants or plaques in 2.5% (1/40) vs. 70% (28/40); and endometriotic nodules in 2.5% (1/40) vs. 35% (14/40), respectively. Routine TVUS diagnosis relied on the presence or absence of endometrioma (10/10), whereas ETVUS showed additional sites of disease in 97% (30/31) patients. Conclusions: ETVUS is more sensitive than routine TVUS to diagnose endometriosis, identifying lesions other than endometrioma and is of assistance in surgical planning and patient counseling.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">The Author(s), 2014</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Diagnosis</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Endometriosis</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Imaging</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Transvaginal ultrasound</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">TVUS : Trans vaginal ultrasound</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">ETVUS : Expert-guided trans vaginal ultrasound</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Fraser</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Margaret</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Medical Imaging, University of Ottawa, 501, Smyth Road, K1H8L6, Ottawa, ON, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Agarwal</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Sugandha</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, K1H7W9, Ottawa, ON, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Chen</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Innie</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, K1Y4E9, Ottawa, ON, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Singh</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Sukhbir</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, K1H7W9, Ottawa, ON, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">Abdominal Imaging</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">40/3(2015-03-01), 587-594</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0942-8925</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">40:3&lt;587</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2015</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">261</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0243-5</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Metadata rights reserved</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">Springer special CC-BY-NC licence</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-springer</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0243-5</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Fraser</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Margaret</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Medical Imaging, University of Ottawa, 501, Smyth Road, K1H8L6, Ottawa, ON, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Agarwal</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Sugandha</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, K1H7W9, Ottawa, ON, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Chen</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Innie</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, K1Y4E9, Ottawa, ON, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Singh</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Sukhbir</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, K1H7W9, Ottawa, ON, Canada</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">Abdominal Imaging</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">40/3(2015-03-01), 587-594</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0942-8925</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">40:3&lt;587</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2015</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">261</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
