|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of physical examination, transvaginal sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and rectal endoscopic sonography for the identification of rectovaginal endometriosis and potential rectal infiltration. Women with suspected rectovaginal endometriosis underwent physical examination, transvaginal sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and rectal endoscopic sonography. Evaluation was performed for the presence of rectovaginal endometriotic foci and rectal infiltration. The findings obtained with these methods were compared with those of surgical and histopathological examination. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were evaluated for each method. Rectovaginal endometriosis was histologically confirmed in 21 (72.4%) of 29 women. With respect to diagnosis of rectovaginal endometriosis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of physical examination were 95.2%, 62.5%, and 86.2%; those of transvaginal sonography were 42.9%, 87.5%, and 55.2%; those of magnetic resonance imaging were 90.5%, 87.5%, and 89.7%; and those of rectal endoscopic sonography were 81.0%, 75.0%, and 79.3%, respectively. With respect to identification of rectal infiltration, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of transvaginal sonography were 26.7%, 85.7%, and 55.2%; those of magnetic resonance imaging were 73.3%, 92.9%, and 82.8%; and those of rectal endoscopic sonography were 86.7%, 85.7%, and 86.2%, respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging combined with physical examination seem to be the main approach for the presurgical assessment of rectovaginal endometriosis. Rectal endoscopic sonography is a worthwhile method for the diagnosis of rectal infiltration.