TABLE 3.
Difference between the size of nodule estimated by imaging techniques vs measured on histopathology in patients with posterior compartment DE
| Location | Length on histology (mm, mean ±SD) | RWC‐TVS | SVG | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias (SD)a | Limits of agreementb | Bias (SD)a | Limits of agreementb | |||
| All (n c = 299) | 10.6 ± 6.9 | –0.1 (±4.3) | –8.7 to 8.4 | 0.2 (±5.2) | –10.1 to 10.5 | 0.066 |
| Recto sigmoid (n c = 88) | 17.3 ± 7.8 | 0.8 (±5.7) | –10.2 to 11.9 | 1.0 (±7.0) | –12.8 to 14.9 | 0.069 |
| Rectovaginal septum (n c = 34) | 11.0 ± 4.3 | –1.1 (±2.0) | –5.1 to 2.8 | –0.6 (±2.1) | –4.8 to 3.5 | 0.169 |
| Uterosacral ligaments (n c = 156) | 6.7 ± 3.4 | –1.1 (±1.8) | –4.8 to 2.6 | –0.6 (±2.6) | –5.6 to 4.4 | 0.803 |
| Vagina (n c = 21) | 10.9 ± 3.4 | 0.8 (±5.6) | –10.2 to 11.9 | 1.0 (±7.1) | –12.8 to 14.9 | 0.434 |
Abbreviations: RWC‐TVS: Rectal water contrast‐transvaginal ultrasonography; SVG: sonovaginography.
a
Calculated by subtracting the size of nodule measured by imaging technique from the size of nodule measured on histology.
b
Limits of agreement calculated as mean difference ±2 SD of the difference.
c
Number of nodules.