Noninvasive diagnostic tools for pelvic congestion syndrome: a systematic review
SourceActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 97, 7, (2018), pp. 776-786
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
SubjectRadboudumc 16: Vascular damage RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Radboudumc 17: Women's cancers RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Radboudumc 18: Healthcare improvement science RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences
INTRODUCTION: In the work-up of patients with suspected pelvic congestion syndrome, venography is currently the gold standard. Yet if non-invasive diagnostic tools are found to be accurate, invasive venography might no longer be indicated as necessary. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search in Pubmed and EMBASE was performed from inception until 6 May 2017. Studies comparing non-invasive diagnostic tools to a reference standard in the work-up of patients with (suspected) pelvic congestion syndrome were included. Relevant data were extracted and methodological quality of individual included studies was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS: Nine studies matched our inclusion criteria. Six studies compared ultrasonography to venography and three studies described a magnetic resonance imaging technique. In using transvaginal ultrasonography, the occurrence of a vein greater than five mm crossing the uterine body had a specificity of 91% (95% CI; 77-98%) and occurrence of pelvic varicoceles a sensitivity and specificity of 100% (95% CI; 89-100%) and 83-100% (95% CI; 66-93%), respectively. In transabdominal ultrasonography, reversed caudal flow in the ovarian vein accounted for a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI; 84-100%). Detection of pelvic congestion syndrome with magnetic resonance imaging techniques resulted in a sensitivity varying from 88 to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging seem to be adequate, which indicates a role for both tests in an early stage of the diagnostic workup. However, due to methodological flaws and diversity in outcome parameters, more high standard research is necessary to establish a clear advice for clinical practice.
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.