الفهرس 
RECURRENT MISCARRIAGEOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 200 |  |  |
| | | from | 200 | | |
Abstract
This meant that the results of 2-DHS in detection of lesions compared to their distribution as detected collectively by both hysteroscopy and 2-DHS had a sensitivity of 84.3% (for all lesions collectively), 100% for endometrial polyps and bicournate uterus and 90% for biseptate uterus and sub-mucous fibroid and 80% for intramural fibroid and 70% for arcuate uterus and 60% for intra-uterine synaechea. It had a specificity of 80% (for all lesions collectively and for each of the lesions individually), a positive predictive value of 93.7% (for all lesions collectively), 71.4% for endometrial polyps and bicournate uterus and 69.2% for biseptate uterus and sub-mucous fibroid and 66.7% for intramural fibroid and 63.6% for arcuate uterus and 60% for intra-uterine synaechea. A negative predictive value 59.3% (for all lesions collectively), 100% for endometrial polyps and bicournate uterus and 94.1% for biseptate uterus and sub-mucous fibroid and 88.9% for intramural fibroid and 84.2% for arcuate uterus and 80% for intra-uterine synaechea.
According to the results of this study, it is concluded that 2-DHS should have advantages over diagnostic hysteroscopy in assessing the uterine configuration and it should be reconsidered: does hysteroscopy still considered the gold standard test in detecting uterine lesions And can 2-dimensional hysterosonography be its suitable alternative diagnostic tool for intracaviatary uterine lesions.