2D/3D Endovaginal and Endoanal Instrumentation and Techniques



A thorough understanding of the ultrasound instrumentation and techniques along with better understanding of the capabilities and limitations of ultrasound equipment will enable the operator to perform meaningful two- and three-dimensional (2D/3D) endovaginal and endoanal imaging. In this chapter we will introduce the reader to basic ultrasound instrumentation and techniques. The ultrasound machine combines image production (2D/3D imaging) with Doppler assessment. These distinct technologies can be used independently or in combination to provide the examiner with the ability to make accurate and comprehensive diagnoses and guide therapeutic intervention.


Endovaginal ultrasound Endoanal ultrasound BK ultrasound Instrumentation 


  1. 1.
    Haylen BT, De Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee JH, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2010;21(1):5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stankiewicz A, Wieczorek AP, Wozniak MM, Bogusiewicz M, Futyma K, Santoro GA, et al. Comparison of accuracy of functional measurements of the urethra in transperineal vs. endovaginal ultrasound in incontinent women. Pelviperineology. 2008;27(4):145–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Shobeiri SA, Mueller ER, Pilat J, Stankiewicz A, et al. Interobserver and interdisciplinary reproducibility of 3D endovaginal ultrasound assessment of pelvic floor anatomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(1):53–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shobeiri SA, LeClaire E, Nihira MA, Quiroz LH, O’Donoghue D. Appearance of the levator ani muscle subdivisions in endovaginal three-dimensional ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(1):66–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shobeiri SA, White D, Quiroz LH, Nihira MA. Anterior and posterior compartment 3D endovaginal ultrasound anatomy based on direct histologic comparison. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(8):1047–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wieczorek AP, Wozniak MM, Stankiewicz A, Bogusiewicz M, Santoro GA, Rechberger T, et al. The assessment of normal female urethral vascularity with color Doppler endovaginal ultrasonography: preliminary report. Pelviperineology. 2009;28(2):59–61.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wieczorek AP, Wozniak MM, Stankiewicz A, Santoro GA, Bogusiewicz M, Rechberger T. 3-D high-frequency endovaginal ultrasound of female urethral complex and assessment of inter-observer reliability. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(1):e7–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Shobeiri SA, Stankiewicz A. Endovaginal ultrasonography: methodology and normal pelvic floor anatomy. In: Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Bartram CI, editors. Pelvic floor disorders: imaging and multidisciplinary approach to management. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. p. 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dal Corso HM, D’Elia A, De Nardi P, Cavallari F, Favetta U, Pulvirenti D’Urso A, et al. Anal endosonography: a survey of equipment, technique and diagnostic criteria adopted in nine Italian centers. Tech Coloproctol. 2007;11(1):26–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Bartram C, editors. Pelvic floor disorders: imaging and multidisciplinary approach to management. Milan: Springer Verlag Italia; 2010. p. 729.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyGynecologic Subspecialties, INOVA Women’s Hospital, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityFalls ChurchUSA
  2. 2.Department of BioengineeringGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations