Cargando…
The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies
What is the recommended diagnostic work-up of female genital anomalies according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) system? The ESHRE/ESGE consensus for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies is presented. Accu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4753246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26918000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0909-1 |
_version_ | 1782415830770778112 |
---|---|
author | Grimbizis, Grigoris F. Di Spiezio Sardo, Attilio Saravelos, Sotirios H. Gordts, Stephan Exacoustos, Caterina Van Schoubroeck, Dominique Bermejo, Carmina Amso, Nazar N. Nargund, Geeta Timmermann, Dirk Athanasiadis, Apostolos Brucker, Sara De Angelis, Carlo Gergolet, Marco Li, Tin Chiu Tanos, Vasilios Tarlatzis, Basil Farquharson, Roy Gianaroli, Luca Campo, Rudi |
author_facet | Grimbizis, Grigoris F. Di Spiezio Sardo, Attilio Saravelos, Sotirios H. Gordts, Stephan Exacoustos, Caterina Van Schoubroeck, Dominique Bermejo, Carmina Amso, Nazar N. Nargund, Geeta Timmermann, Dirk Athanasiadis, Apostolos Brucker, Sara De Angelis, Carlo Gergolet, Marco Li, Tin Chiu Tanos, Vasilios Tarlatzis, Basil Farquharson, Roy Gianaroli, Luca Campo, Rudi |
author_sort | Grimbizis, Grigoris F. |
collection | PubMed |
description | What is the recommended diagnostic work-up of female genital anomalies according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) system? The ESHRE/ESGE consensus for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies is presented. Accurate diagnosis of congenital anomalies still remains a clinical challenge due to the drawbacks of the previous classification systems and the non-systematic use of diagnostic methods with varying accuracy, with some of them quite inaccurate. Currently, a wide range of non-invasive diagnostic procedures are available, enriching the opportunity to accurately detect the anatomical status of the female genital tract, as well as a new objective and comprehensive classification system with well-described classes and sub-classes. The ESHRE/ESGE Congenital Uterine Anomalies (CONUTA) Working Group established an initiative with the goal of developing a consensus for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies. The CONUTA working group and imaging experts in the field have been appointed to run the project. The consensus is developed based on (1) evaluation of the currently available diagnostic methods and, more specifically, of their characteristics with the use of the experts panel consensus method and of their diagnostic accuracy performing a systematic review of evidence and (2) consensus for (a) the definition of where and how to measure uterine wall thickness and (b) the recommendations for the diagnostic work-up of female genital anomalies, based on the results of the previous evaluation procedure, with the use of the experts panel consensus method. Uterine wall thickness is defined as the distance between interostial line and external uterine profile at the midcoronal plane of the uterus; alternatively, if a coronal plane is not available, the mean anterior and posterior uterine wall thickness at the longitudinal plane could be used. Gynaecological examination and two-dimensional ultrasound (2D US) are recommended for the evaluation of asymptomatic women. Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) is recommended for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies in “symptomatic” patients belonging to high-risk groups for the presence of a female genital anomaly and in any asymptomatic woman suspected to have an anomaly from routine avaluation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic evaluation are recommended for the sub-group of patients with suspected complex anomalies or in diagnostic dilemmas. Adolescents with symptoms suggestive for the presence of a female genital anomaly should be thoroughly evaluated with 2D US, 3D US, MRI and endoscopy. The various diagnostic methods should be used in a proper way and evaluated by experts to avoid mis-, over- and underdiagnosis. The role of a combined ultrasound examination and outpatient hysteroscopy should be prospectively evaluated. It is a challenge for further research, based on diagnosis, to objectively evaluate the clinical consequences related to various degrees of uterine deformity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4753246 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47532462016-02-23 The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies Grimbizis, Grigoris F. Di Spiezio Sardo, Attilio Saravelos, Sotirios H. Gordts, Stephan Exacoustos, Caterina Van Schoubroeck, Dominique Bermejo, Carmina Amso, Nazar N. Nargund, Geeta Timmermann, Dirk Athanasiadis, Apostolos Brucker, Sara De Angelis, Carlo Gergolet, Marco Li, Tin Chiu Tanos, Vasilios Tarlatzis, Basil Farquharson, Roy Gianaroli, Luca Campo, Rudi Gynecol Surg Opinion What is the recommended diagnostic work-up of female genital anomalies according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) system? The ESHRE/ESGE consensus for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies is presented. Accurate diagnosis of congenital anomalies still remains a clinical challenge due to the drawbacks of the previous classification systems and the non-systematic use of diagnostic methods with varying accuracy, with some of them quite inaccurate. Currently, a wide range of non-invasive diagnostic procedures are available, enriching the opportunity to accurately detect the anatomical status of the female genital tract, as well as a new objective and comprehensive classification system with well-described classes and sub-classes. The ESHRE/ESGE Congenital Uterine Anomalies (CONUTA) Working Group established an initiative with the goal of developing a consensus for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies. The CONUTA working group and imaging experts in the field have been appointed to run the project. The consensus is developed based on (1) evaluation of the currently available diagnostic methods and, more specifically, of their characteristics with the use of the experts panel consensus method and of their diagnostic accuracy performing a systematic review of evidence and (2) consensus for (a) the definition of where and how to measure uterine wall thickness and (b) the recommendations for the diagnostic work-up of female genital anomalies, based on the results of the previous evaluation procedure, with the use of the experts panel consensus method. Uterine wall thickness is defined as the distance between interostial line and external uterine profile at the midcoronal plane of the uterus; alternatively, if a coronal plane is not available, the mean anterior and posterior uterine wall thickness at the longitudinal plane could be used. Gynaecological examination and two-dimensional ultrasound (2D US) are recommended for the evaluation of asymptomatic women. Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) is recommended for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies in “symptomatic” patients belonging to high-risk groups for the presence of a female genital anomaly and in any asymptomatic woman suspected to have an anomaly from routine avaluation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic evaluation are recommended for the sub-group of patients with suspected complex anomalies or in diagnostic dilemmas. Adolescents with symptoms suggestive for the presence of a female genital anomaly should be thoroughly evaluated with 2D US, 3D US, MRI and endoscopy. The various diagnostic methods should be used in a proper way and evaluated by experts to avoid mis-, over- and underdiagnosis. The role of a combined ultrasound examination and outpatient hysteroscopy should be prospectively evaluated. It is a challenge for further research, based on diagnosis, to objectively evaluate the clinical consequences related to various degrees of uterine deformity. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-11-04 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4753246/ /pubmed/26918000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0909-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Opinion Grimbizis, Grigoris F. Di Spiezio Sardo, Attilio Saravelos, Sotirios H. Gordts, Stephan Exacoustos, Caterina Van Schoubroeck, Dominique Bermejo, Carmina Amso, Nazar N. Nargund, Geeta Timmermann, Dirk Athanasiadis, Apostolos Brucker, Sara De Angelis, Carlo Gergolet, Marco Li, Tin Chiu Tanos, Vasilios Tarlatzis, Basil Farquharson, Roy Gianaroli, Luca Campo, Rudi The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies |
title | The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies |
title_full | The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies |
title_fullStr | The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies |
title_full_unstemmed | The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies |
title_short | The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies |
title_sort | thessaloniki eshre/esge consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies |
topic | Opinion |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4753246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26918000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0909-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT grimbizisgrigorisf thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT dispieziosardoattilio thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT saravelossotiriosh thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT gordtsstephan thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT exacoustoscaterina thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT vanschoubroeckdominique thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT bermejocarmina thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT amsonazarn thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT nargundgeeta thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT timmermanndirk thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT athanasiadisapostolos thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT bruckersara thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT deangeliscarlo thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT gergoletmarco thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT litinchiu thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT tanosvasilios thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT tarlatzisbasil thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT farquharsonroy thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT gianaroliluca thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT camporudi thethessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT grimbizisgrigorisf thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT dispieziosardoattilio thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT saravelossotiriosh thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT gordtsstephan thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT exacoustoscaterina thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT vanschoubroeckdominique thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT bermejocarmina thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT amsonazarn thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT nargundgeeta thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT timmermanndirk thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT athanasiadisapostolos thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT bruckersara thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT deangeliscarlo thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT gergoletmarco thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT litinchiu thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT tanosvasilios thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT tarlatzisbasil thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT farquharsonroy thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT gianaroliluca thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies AT camporudi thessalonikieshreesgeconsensusondiagnosisoffemalegenitalanomalies |