Download PDF
Ultraschall Med 2023; 44(02): 151-161
DOI: 10.1055/a-1851-5157
Guidelines & Recommendations

Qualitätsanforderungen an gynäkologische Ultraschall-Untersuchungen der DEGUM-Stufe I: Empfehlungen der DEGUM, ÖGUM und SGUM

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Dieter Grab
1   Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm, Germany
,
Eberhard Merz
2   Frankfurt, Center for Ultrasound and Prenatal Medicine, Frankfurt/Main, Germany
,
Karl-Heinz Eichhorn
3   Gynecology and Obstetrics, Practice of prenatal medicine, Weimar, Germany
,
Boris Tutschek 
4   Prof. Tutschek, Prenatal Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland
,
Karl Oliver Kagan
5   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Tuebingen, Germany
,
Kai-Sven Heling
6   Berlin, Prenatal Diagnosis and Human Genetics, Berlin, Germany
,
Renaldo Faber 
7   Leipzig, Center of Prenatal Medicine, Leipzig, Germany
,
Philipp Klaritsch 
8   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Graz, Austria
,
Andreas Rempen
9   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Diakonieklinik, Schwäbisch Hall, Germany
,
Christiane Kähler
10   Obst Gyn, Practice of prenatal medicine Erfurt, Germany
,
Wolfgang Henrich
11   Obstetrics, Charité University Hospital Berlin – Virchow Hospital Campus, Berlin, Germany
,
Gwendolin Manegold-Brauer 
12   Department of prenatal medicine and gynecologic ultrasound, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland
,
Samir Helmy
13   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
,
Markus Hoopmann
14   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die sonografische Basisuntersuchung in der Gynäkologie umfasst Diagnostik und Differenzialdiagnostik in der täglichen Praxis: Gesundheitsvorsorge, Abgrenzung der Normalbefunde von pathologischen Befunden wie kongenitale Fehlbildungen, benigne und maligne Tumoren, Adnextorsionen, entzündliche Erkrankungen des inneren Genitals, Endometriose, gestörte Frühgraviditäten und Tubargraviditäten sowie Fragestellungen zu Kontrazeption und Fertilität. Die Standardisierung der Untersuchungstechnik sowie die genaue Definition der Leistungsinhalte für die Basisdiagnostik und für die weiterführende Diagnostik (DEGUM-Stufe II) analog des schon seit Jahren in der pränatalen Diagnostik bewährten Mehrstufenkonzepts der DEGUM sind inzwischen auch in die gynäkologische Sonografie implementiert worden. Als Grundlage für eine strukturierte Aus- und Weiterbildung im Rahmen dieses Stufenkonzepts haben DEGUM, ÖGUM und SGUM die Qualitätsanforderungen und die Leistungsinhalte für gynäkologische sonografische Basisuntersuchungen (DEGUM-Stufe I) entsprechend dem gegenwärtigen Kenntnisstand sowie anhand nationaler und internationaler Standards und Empfehlungen aktualisiert.

Key words

gynecology - education - training - quality Assurance - basic ultrasound


Publication History

Received: 22 September 2021

Accepted: 28 April 2022

Article published online:
15 June 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Eichhorn KH, Schramm T, Bald R. et al. Qualitätsanforderungen an die DEGUM-Stufe I bei der geburtshilflichen Ultraschalldiagnostik im Zeitraum 19–22 Schwangerschaftswochen. Ultraschall in Med 2006; 28: 185-187
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Merz E, Eichhorn KH, von Kaisenberg C. et al. Aktualisierte Qualitätsanforderungen an die weiterführende differenzierte Ultraschalluntersuchung in der pränatalen Diagnostik (=DEGUM-Stufe II) im Zeitraum von 18+0 bis 21+6 Schwangerschaftswochen. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: 593-596
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Grab D, Merz E, Prömpeler H. et al. Standards zur gynäkologischen Sonografie. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 415-417
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bajka M, Berclaz G, Müller RC. et al. Empfehlungen zur Ultraschalluntersuchung in der Gynäkologie. Leitlinie der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin, Sektion Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (SGUMGG) und der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (SGGG). 2. Aufl.. 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 5 EFSUMB (European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology). Minimum training requirements for the practice of medical ultrasound in medicine. Ultraschall in Med 2006; 27: 79-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Salvasen KA, Lees C, Tutschek B. Basic European ultrasound training in obstetrics and gynecology: where are we and where do we go from here?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 525-529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 ISUOG (International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology). Education Committee recommendations for basic training in obstetric and gynecological ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 113-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Leonardi M, Murji A, D’Souza R. Ultrasound curricula in obstetrics and gynecology training programs. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52: 147-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bernaschek G, Deutinger J. Endosonography in obstetrics and gynecology: The importance of standardized image display. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 817-819
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Timmermann D, Valentin L, Bourne TH. et al. Terms, definitions, and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 500-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Leone FPG, Timmermann D, Bourne T. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 103-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Van den Bosch T, Duehom M, Leone FPG. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46: 284-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Van den Bosch T, De Brujn AM, De Leeuw RA. et al. Sonographic classification and reporting system for diagnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53: 576-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM. et al. O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. Radiology 2020; 294: 168-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Van den Bosch T, Verbakel JY, Valentin L. et al. Typical ultrasound features of various endometrial pathologies described using International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) terminology in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; 57: 164-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften AWMF. Harninkontinenz der Frau. Leitlinie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG). AWMF 015/091(S2k). 2022
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Timmermann D, Testa C, Bourne T. et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 681-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Merz E. Is transducer hygiene sufficient when vaginal probes are used in the clinical routine?. Ultrasound in Med 2016; 37: 137-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Guidelines for cleaning and preparing external- and internal-use ultrasound transducers and equipment between patients as well as safe handling and use of ultrasound coupling gel. https://www.aium.org/officialstatements/57 Approved: 05/16/2017; Reapproved: 03/25/2018, 11/03/2018, 03/27/2020, 03/05/2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Guerriero S, Condous G, van den Bosch T. et al. Systematic approach to sonographic evaluation of the pelvis in women with suspected endometriosis, including terms, definitions and measurements: a consensus opinion from the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 318-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ludovisi M, Moro F, Pasciuto T. et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (15): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of uterine sarcoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54: 676-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Fraser IS. The FIGO classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (07) 2204-2208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rempen A, Chaoui R, Häusler M. et al. Quality requirements for ultrasound examination in early pregnancy (DEGUM Level I) between 4+0 and 13+6 weeks of gestation. Ultraschall in Med 2016; 37: 559-583
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ameye L, Timmerman D, Valentin L. et al. Clinical oriented three-step strategy for assessment of adnexal pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 582-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Van Calster B, van Hoorde K, Valentin L. et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 2014; 349: g5920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Timmerman D, Planchamp F, Bourne T. et al. ESCO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; 58: 148-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Benjaminov O, Atri M. Sonography of the abnormal fallopian tube. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 737-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Timor-Tritsch IE, Lerner JP, Monteagudo A. et al. Transvaginal sonographic markers of tubal inflammatory disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 56-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Condous G, Okaro E, Khalid A. et al. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (05) 1404-1409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tsakiridis I, Giouleka S, Mamopoulos A. et al. Diagnosis and management of ectopic pregnancy: A comparative review of major national guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2020; 75: 611-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Pape J, Bajka A, Strutas D. et al. The predictive value of decisive and soft ultrasound criteria for ectopic pregnancy identification in 321 preoperative cases. Ultraschall in Med 2021; DOI: 10.1055/a-1487–5030.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hoopmann M, Tutschek B, Merz E. et al. Qualitätsanforderungen für gynäkologische Ultraschalluntersuchungen durch die DEGUM-Stufe II. Ultraschall in Med 2021; DOI: 10.1055/a-1663–6322.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar