Cargando…
Diagnostic capabilities of transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) to evaluate anal sphincter defect post obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS)? A systematic review
INTRODUCTION: Endoanal ultrasound (3D-EAUS) is the gold standard imaging investigation for evaluating the anal sphincter; unfortunately, it is not universally available in most obstetric units. This study aims to appraise the ability of transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) compared with 3D-EAUS as the go...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10247614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36630015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00763-3 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Endoanal ultrasound (3D-EAUS) is the gold standard imaging investigation for evaluating the anal sphincter; unfortunately, it is not universally available in most obstetric units. This study aims to appraise the ability of transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) compared with 3D-EAUS as the gold standard to identify anal sphincter defects after primary repair of OASIS. METHODS: A systematic search of major databases to identify diagnostic accuracy of 3D-TPUS in evaluating anal sphincter defects. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were designed for this systematic review. The risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Our eligibility criteria are patients with a history of primary repair of anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). They were followed up after the primary repair to detect the anal sphincter defect using 3D-TPUS vs. 3D-EAUS as a gold standard. RESULTS: Two eligible observational studies were included and assessed for risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool and showed a low risk of bias and a low risk of concerns. 3D-TPUS had various sensitivity to detect external anal sphincter defects in two studies; meanwhile, the specificity was around 67–70%. For detecting the internal anal sphincter defects, 3D-TPUS had low sensitivity but high specificity (93–94%). CONCLUSION: 3D-TPUS had various sensitivity to detect external anal sphincter defects and low sensitivity to detect internal anal sphincter defects. On the other hand, 3D-TPUS had low specificity for detecting external anal sphincter defects and high specificity for detecting internal anal sphincter defects. |
---|