<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article">
 <front>
  <journal-meta>
   <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">
    ojog
   </journal-id>
   <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>
     Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
    </journal-title>
   </journal-title-group>
   <issn pub-type="epub">
    2160-8792
   </issn>
   <issn publication-format="print">
    2160-8806
   </issn>
   <publisher>
    <publisher-name>
     Scientific Research Publishing
    </publisher-name>
   </publisher>
  </journal-meta>
  <article-meta>
   <article-id pub-id-type="doi">
    10.4236/ojog.2024.1411146
   </article-id>
   <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">
    ojog-137667
   </article-id>
   <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
     <subject>
      Articles
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2">
     <subject>
      Medicine 
     </subject>
     <subject>
       Healthcare
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
   </article-categories>
   <title-group>
    Correlation between Hysterosonography and Hysteroscopy in the Diagnosis of Submucosal Fibroids in Women Attending the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgery and Human Reproductive Teaching Hospital (CHRACERH)
   </title-group>
   <contrib-group>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Pascale Mpono
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Emenguele
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Henri Léonard
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Mol
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Vanina Ngono
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Akam
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Serge Robert
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Nyada
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Yves Bertrand
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Kasia
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Claude Hector
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Mbia
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Roosevelt
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Dongmo
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Etienne
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Belinga
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Claude Cyrille Noa
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Ndoua
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Jean Marie
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Kasia
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
   </contrib-group> 
   <aff id="aff1">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Yaoundé 1, Yaoundé, Cameroon
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff2">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHRACERH, Yaoundé, Cameroon
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <pub-date pub-type="epub">
    <day>
     30
    </day> 
    <month>
     10
    </month>
    <year>
     2024
    </year>
   </pub-date> 
   <volume>
    14
   </volume> 
   <issue>
    11
   </issue>
   <fpage>
    1775
   </fpage>
   <lpage>
    1785
   </lpage>
   <history>
    <date date-type="received">
     <day>
      19,
     </day>
     <month>
      October
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year>
    </date>
    <date date-type="published">
     <day>
      24,
     </day>
     <month>
      October
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year> 
    </date> 
    <date date-type="accepted">
     <day>
      24,
     </day>
     <month>
      November
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year> 
    </date>
   </history>
   <permissions>
    <copyright-statement>
     © Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 
    </copyright-statement>
    <copyright-year>
     2014
    </copyright-year>
    <license>
     <license-p>
      This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
     </license-p>
    </license>
   </permissions>
   <abstract>
    <b>Background:</b> Submucosal myomas can be responsible for abnormal bleeding, spontaneous abortions or even infertility. 
    <b>Objectives:</b> This study aimed to study the correlation between the diagnosis and classification of submucosal fibroids at hysterosonography and at hysteroscopy at Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgery and Human Reproductive Teaching Hospital (CHRACERH), Yaoundé, Cameroon. 
    <b>Methodology:</b> We conducted a hospital-based cross-sectional study with retrospective data collection. Included were the files of patients in whom a hysteroscopy for uterine cavity evaluation was done from the 1
    <sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31
    <sup>st</sup> of July 2022. The data collected were analysed using SPSS version 25 and Microsoft Excel 2013. Hysterosonographic findings were compared to those of hysteroscopy using Cohen’s kappa inter-observer agreement test. 
    <b>Results:</b> A total of 104 women had available hysterosonography results prior to diagnostic hysteroscopy. The ages of the participants ranged from 26 to 65 years with a mean age of 39.92 ± 7.02 years. A total of 69 submucosal fibroids were identified at hysterosonography and 47 (68.1%) were found at hysteroscopy. There was agreement between the two methods in 13/17 (76.5%) cases of FIGO 0 fibroids, 21/30 (70.0%) of FIGO 1 fibroids and 13/22 (59.1%) of FIGO 2 fibroids. The overall agreement was moderate with a kappa coefficient of 0.478 (p &lt; 0.001). The best level of agreement was achieved in classifying FIGO 0 fibroids, and the level of agreement decreased with increasing degree of myometrial involvement. There was an overall statistically significant association between visualisation of fibroids at hysterosonography and at hysteroscopy (OR = 7.44, 95% CI: 2.49 - 22.27, p &lt; 0.001). 
    <b>Conclusion:</b> The results present hysteroscopy as the gold standard for the diagnosis of submucosal myomas, but clinicians need to recognize utility of hysterosonography in certain situations.
   </abstract>
   <kwd-group> 
    <kwd>
     Submucosal Fibroids
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Hysterosonography
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Hysteroscopy
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Correlation
    </kwd>
   </kwd-group>
  </article-meta>
 </front>
 <body>
  <sec id="s1">
   <title>1. Introduction</title>
   <sec id="s1_1">
    <title>Background</title>
    <p>Leiomyomas of the uterus are the most common solid pelvic tumours found in women and are estimated to occur in 20% - 50% of women with increased frequency during the late reproductive years <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-1">
      [1]
     </xref>. Submucous myomas are a common cause of menstrual disturbances including menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea and inter-menstrual bleeding <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-2">
      [2]
     </xref>, and may cause infertility by interfering with implantation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-3">
      [3]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Properly selected submucous myomas can be removed using operative hysteroscopy with a significant reduction in operative morbidity, post-operative recovery time, and cost compared to abdominal myomectomy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-4">
      [4]
     </xref>. The main factors determining the feasibility of complete and safe hysteroscopic myoma resection appears to be the size of the myoma and the proportion of the myoma protruding into the uterine cavity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-4">
      [4]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Diagnostic hysteroscopy is currently the gold standard investigation used to determine the feasibility of resection of submucous myomas prior to the scheduling of an operative hysteroscopy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-5">
      [5]
     </xref>. It allows direct visualization of the uterine cavity and identification of intracavitary lesions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-5">
      [5]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>However, diagnostic hysteroscopy is an invasive and costly procedure which is associated with risks such as uterine perforation and ascending genito-urinary infection <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-6">
      [6]
     </xref>. Furthermore, it only provides subjective assessment of myoma size and indirect information about the degree of myoma extension into the endometrial cavity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-7">
      [7]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Ultrasound with sterile saline instillation into the endometrial cavity termed hysterosonography is an established technique that allows visualization of intracavitary lesions such as submucous myomas with an accuracy higher than the conventional two dimensional ultrasound <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-8">
      [8]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-10">
      [10]
     </xref>, and is comparable to that of diagnostic hysteroscopy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-11">
      [11]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-13">
      [13]
     </xref>, and with lower cost and a low incidence of complications <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-14">
      [14]
     </xref>. Furthermore, hysterosonography allows accurate assessment of myoma number, measurement of myomas size as well as the thickness of the overlying myometrium, termed the myometrial free margin as well as to detect other uterine and adnexal pathology <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-12">
      [12]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>The aim of this study was to compare hysterosonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the diagnosis and classification of submucous uterine fibroids.</p>
    <sec id="s1">
     <title>2. Material and Methods</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="s2_2">
     <title>2.1. Study Design</title>
     <p>We did a hospital-based cross-sectional study with retrospective data collection.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="s2_3">
     <title>2.2. Study Period</title>
     <p>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>The study was conducted from the 1<sup>st</sup> to the 31<sup>st</sup> of August 2022, with data from women who attended Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgery and Human Reproductive Teaching Hospital from the 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="s2_4">
     <title>2.3. Study Setting</title>
     <p>This study was carried out at the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgery and Human Reproductive Teaching Hospital (CHRACERH) which is tertiary health facility located at the Ngousso neighbourhood of Yaoundé, capital city of Cameroon.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="s2_5">
     <title>2.4. Study Population</title>
     <p>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>Included were symptomatic women who consulted at Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgery and Human Reproductive Teaching Hospital from the 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022, in whom a hysterosonography was done followed by a diagnostic hysteroscopy with both findings available in patient’s medical records.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="s2_6">
     <title>2.5. Study Procedure</title>
     <p>Before the start of our study, Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical committee of Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgery and Human Reproductive Teaching Hospital. Data for this study was collected using a pre-tested questionnaire from files of women who consulted at Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgery and Human</p>
     <fig id="fig1" position="float">
      <label>Figure 1</label>
      <caption>
       <title>Figure 1. 2011 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics classification of myomas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-15">
         [15]
        </xref>.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1433520-rId15.jpeg?20241127110539" />
     </fig>
     <p>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>Reproductive Teaching Hospital from the 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022, who were diagnosed of submucous myomas and/or endometrial polyps by hysterosonography, and later underwent a diagnostic hysteroscopy under general anaesthesia</p>
     <p>Information on sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, as well as information concerning the submucosal fibroids diagnosed at hysterosonography and hysteroscopy (number, and FIGO Classification) were obtained by using a self-constructed questionnaire. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">
       Figure 1
      </xref> shows the 2011 FIGO classification of uterine myomas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-15">
       [15]
      </xref>.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="s2_7">
     <title>2.6. Statistics</title>
     <p>Data was entered at the end of the collection process into a computer and analysed using SPSS version 25 and Microsoft Excel 2013. Missing data were imputed using the multiple regression method, and cases with more than 10% missing data were excluded from the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, while numerical variables were summarized as means with their corresponding standard deviation (SD) and range. The measure of association was reported as odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence interval and p-value. Agreement between the two diagnostic tests was calculated using Cohen’s kappa for inter-observer agreement <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-16">
       [16]
      </xref>. Each observation was independent of others, ensuring that one observer’s assessment did not influence another’s. The data used for the kappa calculation were categorical, specifically focusing on the presence or absence of submucous myomas The hypotheses tested for this test were as follows:</p>
     <p>The kappa coefficient (κ) was interpreted as follows:</p>
    </sec>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3">
    <title>3. Results</title>
    <sec id="s3_1">
     <title>3.1. General Characteristics of the Study Population</title>
     <p>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>This study was carried out on 104 women who were diagnosed of submucous myomas and/or endometrial polyps by hysterosonography, and later underwent a diagnostic hysteroscopy. All hysterosonographies were performed by radiologists and all hysteroscopies by gynaecologists-hysteroscopists. The ages of the participants ranged from 26 to 65 years with a mean age of 39.92 ± 7.02 years.</p>
     <p>The majority of women were in the age group &gt;40 years (N = 52, 50%), were married (N = 69, 66.3%), self-employed (49, 47.1%) and resided in urban areas (N = 87, 83.7%). This is shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
       Table 1
      </xref>.</p>
     <table-wrap id="table1">
      <label>
       <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
        Table 1
       </xref></label>
      <caption>
       <title>
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of patients undergoing hysterosonography and hysteroscopy at CHRACERH from 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022.</title>
      </caption>
      <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">VARIABLES</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">FREQUENCY (n)</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">PERCENTAGE (%) N = 104</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Age (in years)</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">20 - 30</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">11</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">10.6</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">31 - 40</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">41</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">39.4</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">&gt;40</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">52</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">50.0</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Marital status</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Married</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">69</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">66.3</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Single</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">34</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">32.7</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Divorced</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">01</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">0.9</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Occupation</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Civil servant</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">32</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">30.8</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Housewife</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">18</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">17.3</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Self-employment</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">49</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">47.1</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Student</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">05</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">04.8</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Place of residence</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Rural</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">17</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">16.3</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.65%"><p style="text-align:center">Urban</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="29.01%"><p style="text-align:center">87</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="35.34%"><p style="text-align:center">83.7</p></td> 
       </tr> 
      </table>
     </table-wrap>
     <p>Civil servant = teacher, nurse, medical doctor, magistrate, etc.; Self-employment = farmer, tailor, hairdresser, trader, etc.</p>
     <p>A total of 33 (35.6%) women had been pregnant at least once. Sixty-seven women were nulliparous and the parity ranged from 0 to 4 with a mean parity of 0.52 ± 0.9 SD.</p>
     <fig id="fig2" position="float">
      <label>Figure 2</label>
      <caption>
       <title>Figure 2. Risk factors for uterine fibroids on patients undergoing hysterosonography and hysteroscopy at CHRACERH from 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1433520-rId16.jpeg?20241127110540" />
     </fig>
     <p>The major risk factors for uterine fibroids in our study population were nulliparity (N = 67, 64.3%), family history (N = 19, 18.3%), and obesity (N = 2, 1.9%). This is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
       Figure 2
      </xref>.</p>
     <p>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>The major clinical presentations of uterine fibroids in our study population were infertility (N = 44, 42.3%), menorrhagia (N = 33, 31.7%), metrorrhagia (N = 29, 27.9%) and dysmenorrhea (N = 18, 17.3%), as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">
       Figure 3
      </xref> below.</p>
     <fig id="fig3" position="float">
      <label>Figure 3</label>
      <caption>
       <title>Figure 3. Clinical presentation of patients undergoing hysterosonography and hysteroscopy at CHRACERH from 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1433520-rId17.jpeg?20241127110540" />
     </fig>
    </sec>
    <sec id="s3_2">
     <title>3.2. Paraclinical Data</title>
     <p>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>In our sample, most fibroids visualised at hysterosonography were classified FIGO 1 (N = 30, 43%), followed by FIGO 2 (N = 22, 32%), and then FIGO 0 (N = 17, 25%), as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">
       Figure 4
      </xref> below.</p>
     <p>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref></p>
     <fig id="fig4" position="float">
      <label>Figure 4</label>
      <caption>
       <title>Figure 4. Classification of fibroids in patients undergoing hysterosonography at CHRACERH from 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022. FIGO 0 = Pedunculated intracavitary fibroid; FIGO 1 = Fibroid &lt;50% intramural; FIGO 2 = Fibroid &gt; 50% intramural.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1433520-rId18.jpeg?20241127110540" />
     </fig>
     <p>Most fibroids visualised at hysteroscopy were classified FIGO 1 (N = 21, 45%), followed by FIGO 2 (N = 13, 28%), and then FIGO 0 (N = 13, 27%). This is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">
       Figure 5
      </xref> below.</p>
     <p>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref></p>
     <fig id="fig5" position="float">
      <label>Figure 5</label>
      <caption>
       <title>Figure 5. Classification of fibroids in patients undergoing hysteroscopy at CHRACERH from 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022. FIGO 0 = Pedunculated intracavitary; fibroid; FIGO 1 = Fibroid &lt; 50% intramural; FIGO 2 = Fibroid &gt; 50% intramural.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1433520-rId19.jpeg?20241127110541" />
     </fig>
     <p>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>A total of 44 (63.8%) submucosal fibroids out of 69 visualised at hysterosonography were confirmed at hysteroscopy. Concerning the sub-types, 13 fibroids were classified as FIGO 0, 21 as FIGO 1 and 13 as FIGO 2 by both hysterosonography and hysteroscopy (27.6%, 44.8%, and 27.6% of the types of fibroids respectively). Generally, there was fair agreement between hysterosonography and hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of 44/69 submucosal fibroids with a kappa inter-observer value of 0.47. The best level of agreement (moderate) was achieved in classifying FIGO 0 fibroids (76.5% agreement, kappa = 0.47), and the level of agreement decreased with increasing degree of myometrial involvement (from FIGO 0 to FIGO 2). There was an overall association between visualisation of fibroids at hysterosonography and at hysteroscopy (OR = 7.44, 95% CI: 2.49 - 22.4, p &lt; 0.001), as well as with the different sub-types. These results are summarised in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
       Table 2
      </xref>, and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
       Table 3
      </xref> below.</p>
     <table-wrap id="table2">
      <label>
       <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
        Table 2
       </xref></label>
      <caption>
       <title>
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>Table 2. Correlation between findings at Hysterosonography and at Hysteroscopy at CHRACERH from 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022.</title>
      </caption>
      <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="14.46%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="10.90%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="39.05%" colspan="2"><p style="text-align:center">Fibroids at HSK</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="21.86%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="21.47%"><p style="text-align:center">OR (95% CI)</p></td> 
        <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="13.56%"><p style="text-align:center">p-value</p></td> 
        <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="12.32%"><p style="text-align:center">Kappa</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.46%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="10.90%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="19.37%"><p style="text-align:center">YES</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="19.67%"><p style="text-align:center">NO</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="21.86%"><p style="text-align:center">Total</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td rowspan="2" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.46%"><p style="text-align:center">Fibroids at HSN</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="10.90%"><p style="text-align:center">YES</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="19.37%"><p style="text-align:center">44 (63.8%)</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="19.67%"><p style="text-align:center">25 (36.2%)</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="21.86%"><p style="text-align:center">69 (100.0%)</p></td> 
        <td rowspan="2" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="21.47%"><p style="text-align:center">7.44</p><p style="text-align:center">(2.49 - 22.27)</p></td> 
        <td rowspan="2" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.56%"><p style="text-align:center">&lt;0.001*</p></td> 
        <td rowspan="2" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.32%"><p style="text-align:center">0.478</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="10.90%"><p style="text-align:center">NO</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="19.37%"><p style="text-align:center">3 (8.6%)</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="19.67%"><p style="text-align:center">32 (91.4%)</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="21.86%"><p style="text-align:center">35 (100.0%)</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="14.46%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="10.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Total</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="19.37%"><p style="text-align:center">47 (45.2%)</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="19.67%"><p style="text-align:center">57 (54.8%)</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="21.86%"><p style="text-align:center">104 (100.0%)</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="21.47%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="13.56%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="12.32%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       </tr> 
      </table>
     </table-wrap>
     <p>*Significant p-value; HSK = Hysteroscopy; HSN = Hysterosonography; CI = Confidence interval; OR = Odds ratio; Kappa test interpretation = 0.01 - 0.20 (Slight agreement), 0.21 - 0.40 (Fair agreement), 0.41 - 0.60 (Moderate agreement), 0.61 - 0.80 (Substantial agreement), 0.81 - 1.0 (Perfect agreement).</p>
     <table-wrap id="table3">
      <label>
       <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
        Table 3
       </xref></label>
      <caption>
       <title>
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>Table 3. FIGO specific observed agreement for fibroids on Hysterosonography and at Hysteroscopy at CHRACERH from 1<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 to the 31<sup>st</sup> of July 2022.</title>
      </caption>
      <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="32.99%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">Fibroids at HSN</p><p style="text-align:center">N = 69</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">Fibroids at HSK</p><p style="text-align:center">N = 47</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">Percentage found on both</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="32.99%"><p style="text-align:center">FIGO 0</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">17</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">13</p></td> 
        <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">76.5%</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="32.99%"><p style="text-align:center">FIGO 1</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">30</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">21</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">70.0%</p></td> 
       </tr> 
       <tr> 
        <td class="acenter" width="32.99%"><p style="text-align:center">FIGO 2</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">22</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">13</p></td> 
        <td class="acenter" width="32.98%"><p style="text-align:center">59.1%</p></td> 
       </tr> 
      </table>
     </table-wrap>
    </sec>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4">
    <title>4. Discussion</title>
    <p>This study showed a fair overall agreement between hysterosonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of submucosal fibroids with a kappa value of 0.47. We noticed that the best level of agreement was achieved in classifying FIGO 0 fibroids (76.5% agreement, kappa = 0.47). These are the fibroids that are considered the most suitable for hysteroscopic resection with a high probability of achieving complete resection in a single procedure with a low risk of complications.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>A study by Salim et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-7">
      [7]
     </xref> in the United Kingdom compared hysterosonography and hysteroscopy for the classification of submucosal fibroids. Their results were better than ours, and showed substantial overall agreement between the two diagnostic modalities with a kappa value of 0.80. Their results, similar to ours, showed that the best level of agreement (92%) was achieved in cases with FIGO 0 fibroids. However, the level of agreement decreased with increasing degree of myometrial involvement. In cases of discordant findings, the differences were random with no clear tendency of either method to overestimate myometrial involvement. They attributed this finding to the fact that hysteroscopy can only assess the segment of the fibroid protruding into the cavity, while ultrasound can also provide information about the part of the fibroid buried within the myometrium.</p>
    <p>Another study conducted by Sherif et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-17">
      [17]
     </xref> in Egypt equally showed substantial overall agreement between hysterosonography and hysteroscopy in classifying submucosal fibroids with a kappa value of 0.71. Similar to our study, their best level of agreement was achieved in classifying FIGO 0 fibroids (87.5%), with the level of agreement also decreasing with increasing degree of myometrial involvement. Unlike our study, they found that diagnostic hysteroscopy had a tendency to underestimate the degree of intra-cavitary involvement. A possible explanation may be that diagnostic hysteroscopy requires the creation of high intrauterine pressure in order to allow proper cavitary distension. This high pressure may reduce the portion of the fibroid protruding into the cavity by forcing the fibroid outwards towards the myometrium. The gentle installation of saline into the cavity using a fine catheter at the time of hysterosonography does not raise the intrauterine pressure to such an extent and thus may reflect a more accurate relationship between the myoma and the cavity. This explanation is supported by Leone et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-18">
      [18]
     </xref> who also suggest that the findings of hysterosonography and hysteroscopy should only be compared at similar intrauterine pressure never exceeding 50 mmHg <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-12">
      [12]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-18">
      [18]
     </xref>. This low level of agreement may also be explained by the fact that hysterosonography is a dynamic examination whose interpretation may depend on the angle of view, the resolution of the hysterosonograph and the subjectivity of the operator’s interpretation of the result. In our context of low-income countries, the time that elapses between the examination and the performance of the hysteroscopy may allow fibromatous pathology to evolve.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s5">
    <title>5. Conclusion</title>
    <p>In conclusion, the results of the present study show a fair overall agreement between hysterosonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in diagnosing and classifying submucosal fibroids with a Cohen’s kappa value of 0.47. The highest level of agreement was achieved in classifying FIGO 0 fibroids (76.5% agreement, kappa = 0.47), becoming more discordant with increasing myometrial involvement. Hysterosonography should be considered as a less invasive and more cost-effective alternative to diagnostic hysteroscopy for the pre-operative assessment of submucosal fibroids and the selection of cases considered candidates for safe hysteroscopic resection.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s6">
    <title>Author Contributions</title>
    <p>All authors were involved in developing the manuscript, and PME conceptualized and validated the manuscript, PME and HLM drafted the first version of this manuscript, PME, CHM, VNA and SRN collected the data, HLM and RD did the statistical analysis. All authors have contributed to writing and revising the manuscript.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s7">
    <title>Acknowledgements</title>
    <p>The authors would like to thank the administrative staff and all the staff at CHRACERH, especially those in the operating theatre and archives, who helped us throughout the study. The authors also declare that they received no funding to carry out this study.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s8">
    <title>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.137667-"></xref>Abbreviations</title>
   </sec>
  </sec>
 </body><back>
  <ref-list>
   <title>References</title>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref1">
    <label>1</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Wallach, E.E. and Verkauf, B.S. (1992) Myomectomy for Fertility Enhancement and Preservation. Fertility and Sterility, 58, 1-15. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55128-0 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref2">
    <label>2</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Gupta, S., Jose, J. and Manyonda, I. (2008) Clinical Presentation of Fibroids. Best Practice&amp;Research Clinical Obstetrics&amp;Gynaecology, 22, 615-626. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.01.008 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref3">
    <label>3</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Donnez, J. and Jadoul, P. (2002) What Are the Implications of Myomas on Fertility? Human Reproduction, 17, 1424-1430. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.6.1424 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref4">
    <label>4</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Emanuel, M.H., Wamsteker, K., Hart, A.A.M., Metz, G. and Lammes, F.B. (1999) Long-Term Results of Hysteroscopic Myomectomy for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. Obstetrics&amp;Gynecology, 93, 743-748. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-199905000-00021 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref5">
    <label>5</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Wamsteker, K., Emanuel, M.H. and de Kruif, J.H. (1993) Transcervical Hysteroscopic Resection of Submucous Fibroids for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: Results Regarding the Degree of Intramural Extension. Obstetrics&amp;Gynecology, 82, 736-740. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref6">
    <label>6</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Julian, T.M. (2002) Hysteroscopic Complications. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 6, 39-47. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1097/00128360-200201000-00008 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref7">
    <label>7</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Salim, R., Lee, C., Davies, A., Jolaoso, B., Ofuasia, E. and Jurkovic, D. (2005) A Comparative Study of Three-Dimensional Saline Infusion Sonohysterography and Diagnostic Hysteroscopy for the Classification of Submucous Fibroids. Human Reproduction, 20, 253-257. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh557 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref8">
    <label>8</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Alborzi, S., Parsanezhad, M.E., Mahmoodian, N., Alborzi, S. and Alborzi, M. (2006) Sonohysterography versus Transvaginal Sonography for Screening of Patients with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. International Journal of Gynecology&amp;Obstetrics, 96, 20-23. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.09.004 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref9">
    <label>9</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Botsis, D., Papagianni, V., Makrakis, E., et al. (2006) Sonohysterography Is Superior to Transvaginal Sonography for the Diagnostic Approach of Irregular Uterine Bleeding in Women of Reproductive Age. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, 34, 434-439. &gt;https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jcu.20277 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref10">
    <label>10</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Becker, E., Lev-Toaff, A.S., Kaufman, E.P., Halpern, E.J., Edelweiss, M.I. and Kurtz, A.B. (2002) The Added Value of Transvaginal Sonohysterography over Transvaginal Sonography Alone in Women with Known or Suspected Leiomyoma. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 21, 237-247. &gt;https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2002.21.3.237 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref11">
    <label>11</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Farquhar, C., Ekeroma, A., Furness, S. and Arroll, B. (2003) A Systematic Review of Transvaginal Ultrasonography, Sonohysterography and Hysteroscopy for the Investigation of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding in Premenopausal Women. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 82, 493-504. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00191.x 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref12">
    <label>12</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Leone, F.P.G., Lanzani, C. and Ferrazzi, E. (2003) Use of Strict Sonohysterographic Methods for Preoperative Assessment of Submucous Myomas. Fertility and Sterility, 79, 998-1002. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(02)04916-6 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref13">
    <label>13</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bartkowiak, R., Kaminski, P., Wielgos, M. and Bobrowska, K. (2006) The Evaluation of Uterine Cavity with Saline Infusion Sonohysterography and Hysteroscopy in Infertile Patients. Neuro Enocrinology Letters, 27, 523-528. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref14">
    <label>14</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bonnamy, L., Marret, H., Perrotin, F., Body, G., Berger, C. and Lansac, J. (2002) Sonohysterography: A Prospective Survey of Results and Complications in 81 Patients. European Journal of Obstetrics&amp;Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 102, 42-47. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(01)00567-x 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref15">
    <label>15</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Munro, M.G., Critchley, H.O.D., Broder, M.S. and Fraser, I.S. (2011) FIGO Classification System (PALM-COEIN) for Causes of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding in Nongravid Women of Reproductive Age. International Journal of Gynecology&amp;Obstetrics, 113, 3-13. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.11.011 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref16">
    <label>16</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Cohen, J. (1960) A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref17">
    <label>17</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Negm, S.M.M., Kamel, R.A., Momtaz, M., Magdi, A.M. and Azab, H.S. (2010) Correlation between Three-Dimensional Multi-Slice Sonohysterography and Hysteroscopy in the Diagnosis and Classification of Submucous Myomas. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 15, 209-215. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2010.07.004 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.137667-ref18">
    <label>18</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Leone, F.P.G., Bignardi, T., Marciante, C. and Ferrazzi, E. (2007) Sonohysterography in the Preoperative Grading of Submucous Myomas: Considerations on Three-Dimensional Methodology. Ultrasound in Obstetrics&amp;Gynecology, 29, 717-718. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.4043
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
  </ref-list>
 </back>
</article>