Comparison of the application value of transvaginal ultrasound and transabdominal ultrasound in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy

Table 1 Comparison of general data in each group, n (%)

Group	Age (years), mean ± SD	Multiparas	Primipara	Urine HCG (weak) positive	Blood HCG (weak) positive
TAS group (n = 63)	35.57 ± 3.65	24 (38.10)	39 (61.90)	58 (92.06)	60 (95.23)
TVS group (n = 77)	35.56 ± 3.78	34 (44.16)	43 (55.84)	72 (93.51)	75 (97.40)
T/χ2	0.017	0.581		0.399
P value	0.987	0.469		0.310

SD: Standard deviation; HCG: Humanchorionic gonadotrophin; TAS: Transabdominal ultrasound; TVS: Transvaginal ultrasound.

Table 2 Comparison of the accuracy and misdiagnosis rate of the two methods

Group	Consistent with the diagnosis	Misdiagnosis	Accuracy rate
TAS group (n = 63)	56	7	88.89
TVS group (n = 77)	75	2	97.40
χ2	0.090		0.036
P value	0.041		0.017

TAS: Transabdominal ultrasound; TVS: Transvaginal ultrasound.

Table 3 Comparison of the coincidence rate between the results of different examination methods and postoperative pathological examination

Type	Consistent with the diagnosis	TAS group	TVS group	χ2	P
Ovarian pregnancy	58	54 (93.10)	56 (96.55)	-	-
Tubal pregnancy	20	7 (35.00)	16 (80.00)	0.011	0.004
Cervical pregnancy	15	13 (86.67)	13 (86.67)	-	-
Scarred uterine pregnancy	12	10 (83.33)	11 (91.67)	-	-
Abdominal pregnancy	11	10 (90.91)	11 (100.00)	-	-
Uterine stump pregnancy	9	8 (88.89)	8 (88.89)	-	-
Cornual pregnancy	15	13 (86.67)	14 (93.33)	-	-
Total	140	115 (82.14)	129 (92.14)	0.020	0.012

TAS: Transabdominal ultrasound; TVS: Transvaginal ultrasound.

Table 4 Comparison of sonographic performance differences between two types of ultrasounds for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy

	TAS group (n = 63)	TVS group (n = 77)	χ2	P
Extrauterine mixed mass	17 (26.98)	34 (44.16)	0.054	0.036
Ectopic gestational sac shadow	43 (68.25)	65 (84.42)	0.039	0.023
Uterine rectal fossa fluid	15 (23.81)	8 (10.39)	0.057	0.033
Fetal heart and embryo in the shadow of ectopic gestational sac	45 (71.43)	66 (85.71)	0.062	0.038
Adnexal area	12 (19.05)	27 (35.06)	0.056	0.035
Yolk sac	52 (82.54)	73 (94.81)	0.039	0.020
Consistent with the diagnosis	152 (82.61)	231 (84.62)	0.062	0.045

TAS: Transabdominal ultrasound; TVS: Transvaginal ultrasound.

Table 5 Comparison of diagnosis time and days of gestational sac appearance (mean ± SD)

Group	Diagnosis time	Days of gestational sac appearance	Operation time
TAS group (n = 63)	38.24 ± 6.27	32.56 ± 5.35	42.33 ± 4.65
TVS group (n = 77)	34.56 ± 6.21	28.67 ± 5.54	32.59 ± 4.31
T	3.473	4.197	12.838
P value	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

TAS: Transabdominal ultrasound; TVS: Transvaginal ultrasound.

Table 6 Comparison of endometrial thickness and blood flow resistance

Detection Method	Endometrial thickness		Blood flow resistance in the endometrium
	≤ 1.5 mm	≥ 1.5 mm	≤ 0.5	≥ 0.5
TAS group (n = 63)	36 (57.14)	27 (42.86)	24 (38.10)	39 (61.90)
TVS group (n = 77)	46 (59.74)	31 (40.26)	43 (55.84)	34 (44.16)
χ2	1.096		4.374
P value	0.019		0.036

TAS: Transabdominal ultrasound; TVS: Transvaginal ultrasound.