Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional ultrasound for assessing XXXX intrauterine device location: A pilot study.

@entity1 @entity2692
PURPOSE: To compare the rates of success of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) sonographic (US) examinations in locating and adequately visualizing @entity2692 intrauterine devices (IUDs) and to explore factors associated with the unsuccessful viewing on 2D US. METHODS: Transvaginal 2D and 3D US examinations were performed on all @entity1 1 month after insertion of @entity2692 IUDs. The devices were considered adequately visualized on 2D US if both the vertical (shadow, upper and lower extremities) and the horizontal (two echogenic lines) shafts were identified. 3D volumes were also captured to assess the location of @entity2692 IUDs on 3D US. RESULTS: Thirty @entity1 were included. The rates of adequate device visualization were 40% on 2D US (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.6; 57.7) and 100% on 3D US (95% CI, 88.6; 100.0). The device was not adequately visualized in all six @entity1 who had a retroflexed uterus, but it was adequately visualized in 12 of the 24 @entity1 (50%) who had a nonretroflexed uterus (95% CI, -68.6; -6.8). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 3D US is better than 2D US for locating and adequately visualizing @entity2692 IUDs. Other well-designed studies with adequate power should be conducted to confirm this finding.    2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound, 2015.
