ULTRASONOGRAPHIC VERSUS CLINICAL-EVALUATION OF A PELVIC MASS

  • 1 January 1980
    • journal article
    • research article
    • Vol. 55  (5) , 551-554
Abstract
The usefulness of ultrasonography in the evaluation of a pelvic [tumor] mass in gynecologic practice remains unclear. Pelvic examination findings and preoperative ultrasound findings, were compared in 72 patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy for a pelvic mass. Of the 72 patients, 65 (90%) were correctly diagnosed as having a pelvic mass by pelvic examination and ultrasonography. The ultrasound study had a 5.6% false-negative rate (4 patients) and 4.4% (3 patients) had false-positive pelvic examinations. There was no significant difference by .chi.2 analysis in accuracy between ultrasonography and pelvic examination in detection, estimation of size or determining the unilateral or bilateral position of the mass (P > 0.05). Ultrasonography was significantly more accurate in determining the cystic or solid nature of the mass (P > 0.05). In no patient was the decision to perform exploratory laparotomy altered by the preoperative ultrasound study. Routine ultrasonography is not necessary in the preoperative evaluation of a pelvic mass unless the cystic or solid nature of the mass will modify the patient''s treatment.

This publication has 1 reference indexed in Scilit: