Ultrasonographic assessment of weight of the myomatous uterus: A pilot study using a new combined geometrical formula

The estimated volume of the fibroid uterus: a comparison of ultrasound and bimanual examination versus volume at MRI or hysterectomy

“…Rovio et al developed a new formula combining the ellipsoid (for the corpus) and cylinder formulas (for the cervix). However, the study included only twelve patients and the differences were not significant [28].…”

Sonographic measurement of cervical volume in nonpregnant women using the geometric formula for a cylinder versus the three‐dimensional automated virtual organ computer‐aided analysis (vocal)

“…The coronal view was used to discern the point where endocervical glands end and where endometrium begins. Unfortunately, the two reports in literature that used the cylinder formula in nonpregnant women did not provide any information on how they identified the internal cervical os 4, 5. Therefore, identification in our study was made according to instructions given in reports that concerned pregnant patients 8–10.…”

“…Unfortunately, the two reports in literature that used the cylinder formula in nonpregnant women did not provide any information on how they identified the internal cervical os. 4,5 Therefore, identification in our study was made according to instructions given in reports that concerned pregnant patients. [8][9][10] Identification of the lower cervical boundary at the level of external os was much easier as contrast to the adjacent vaginal wall was much greater.…”

“…In this study we aimed to calculate the volume of cervix with the use of the geometric formula for a cylinder, since the cervix has a cylindrical shape. There are only two reports in literature referring to the use of this formula 4, 5. The first report compared the geometric formula with MRI cervical imaging and showed no statistically significant difference between the two methods 4.…”

“…The first report compared the geometric formula with MRI cervical imaging and showed no statistically significant difference between the two methods 4. In the second report, a small cohort of women (n = 12) underwent two‐dimensional (2D) US measurements prior to hysterectomy 5. Size of uterine corpus and cervix were determined with the geometric formula of prolate ellipsoid and cylinder formula, respectively, and were compared to the actual size of the surgical specimen.…”