[Interest of 3D ultrasound in the follow-up of tubal sterilizations: case report of a rare tubal perforation]

A Pilot Study Comparing 2- and 3-dimensional Ultrasound Imaging for Confirmation of Essure Fallopian Tube Pregnancy Prevention Implants

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To show the feasibility of 2-dimensional (2D) ultrasound (US) imaging compared with 3-dimensional (3D) US to identify the location of implants and assess if the classification developed by Simorre et al in 2016 was applicable to the 2 types of US imaging (i.e., 2D and 3D).

DESIGN

A prospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

The department of obstetrics and gynecology in a teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifty patients who had undergone hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure (Bayer Pharma AG Laboratory, Lyon, France) fallopian tube pregnancy prevention implants were invited by letter to participate in the study; 50 replied positively between January and August 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

An initial 2D US was performed followed by 3D US reconstruction. The primary end point was to compare the identification of device placement with 2D and 3D US imaging procedures according to this new classification. Secondary considerations were to evaluate the difficulty of attaining images, the quality of implant curvature, the duration of each imaging procedure, and the number of images performed for each technique.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-six percent of tubal implants were observed via 3D US compared with 100% via 2D US. The mean time of 2D US was 14.64 seconds for the right fallopian tube and 15.25 seconds for the left fallopian tube compared with 25.11 seconds for the right and 31.57 seconds for the left fallopian tube in 3D US (p <.01). The mean number of image acquisitions per patient was 1.02 (±0.14 standard deviation) for 2D US compared with 1.37 (±0.64 standard deviation) for 3D US (p <.01). The sonographer had no difficulty performing 2D US in 88% of cases compared with 58% of 3D US cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-dimensional ultrasound appears to be an acceptable alternative to 3D US. We propose a 2D classification for cross section device localization to facilitate image interpretation.

[What signs should you look for ultrasound (2D/3D) to affirm the good location of tubal implants? About a retrospective study of 92 cases]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to propose an analysis of the route and the curvature of the Essure^® system in 3D ultrasound to determine their correct location so as not to miss a tubal perforation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective single center study during 2 years analyzing 92 3D ultrasound performed by a single sonographer. Implant placement was performed by different operators. One prescribed 3D ultrasound control in case of difficulties with the installation; other indications where systematics.

RESULTS

The Essure^®'s position is right in 79% of cases. Twenty-eight implants appear incorrectly positioned on ultrasound 3D positioning. Abnormalities found are those described by the classification proposed in the literature. In one case, the curvature of the implant, not taking into account this classification, allowed to evoke a tubal perforation. Among the 28 cases of non-visualized implants in place, 3 cases of wrong position of the implant were confirmed by additional examinations (laparoscopy or HSG). For 14 cases, the ASP or HSG disproved the wrong position of the implants. In other cases, we did not have other complementary examinations.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonography 3D seems to be the method of choice to control implants for simple implementation and good reproducibility. However, the interpretation of 3D ultrasound images is sometimes difficult. The study of the curvature of the implant should be systematically analyzed not to miss a tubal perforation.