Objectives: To evaluate whether the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis need to be better defined and, if deemed necessary, to reach consensus on the updated definitions.Methods: A modified Delphi procedure was performed among European gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis. To identify MUSA features that might need revision, 15 two‐dimensional (2D) video recordings (four recordings also included three‐dimensional (3D) still images) of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) examinations of the uterus were presented in the first Delphi round (online questionnaire). Experts were asked to confirm or refute the presence of each of the nine MUSA features of adenomyosis (described in the original MUSA consensus statement) in each of the 15 videoclips and to provide comments. In the second Delphi round (online questionnaire), the results of the first round and suggestions for revision of MUSA features were shared with the experts before they were asked to assess a new set of 2D and 3D still images of TVS examinations and to provide feedback on the proposed revisions. A third Delphi round (virtual group meeting) was conducted to discuss and reach final consensus on revised definitions of MUSA features. Consensus was predefined as at least 66.7% agreement between experts.Results: Of 18 invited experts, 16 agreed to participate in the Delphi procedure. Eleven experts completed and four experts partly finished the first round. The experts identified a need for more detailed definitions of some MUSA features. They recommended use of 3D ultrasound to optimize visualization of the junctional zone. Fifteen experts participated in the second round and reached consensus on the presence or absence of ultrasound features of adenomyosis in most of the still images. Consensus was reached for all revised definitions except those for subendometrial lines and buds and interrupted junctional zone. Thirteen experts joined the online meeting, in which they discussed and agreed on final revisions of the MUSA definitions. There was consensus on the need to distinguish between direct features of adenomyosis, i.e. features indicating presence of ectopic endometrial tissue in the myometrium, and indirect features, i.e. features reflecting changes in the myometrium secondary to presence of endometrial tissue in the myometrium. Myometrial cysts, hyperechogenic islands and echogenic subendometrial lines and buds were classified unanimously as direct features of adenomyosis. Globular uterus, asymmetrical myometrial thickening, fan‐shaped shadowing, translesional vascularity, irregular junctional zone and interrupted junctional zone were classified as indirect features of adenomyosis.Conclusion: Consensus between gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis was achieved regarding revised definitions of the MUSA features of adenomyosis and on the classification of MUSA features as direct or indirect signs of adenomyosis. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Objective: To generate guidance for detailed uterine niche evaluation by ultrasonography in the non‐pregnant woman, using a modified Delphi procedure amongst European experts.Methods: Twenty gynecological experts were approached through their membership of the European Niche Taskforce. All experts were physicians with extensive experience in niche evaluation in clinical practice and/or authors of niche publications. By means of a modified Delphi procedure, relevant items for niche measurement were determined based on the results of a literature search and recommendations of a focus group of six Dutch experts. It was predetermined that at least three Delphi rounds would be performed (two online questionnaires completed by the expert panel and one group meeting). For it to be declared that consensus had been reached, a consensus rate for each item of at least 70% was predefined.Results: Fifteen experts participated in the Delphi procedure. Consensus was reached for all 42 items on niche evaluation, including definitions, relevance, method of measurement and tips for visualization of the niche. A niche was defined as an indentation at the site of a Cesarean section with a depth of at least 2 mm. Basic measurements, including niche length and depth, residual and adjacent myometrial thickness in the sagittal plane, and niche width in the transverse plane, were considered to be essential. If present, branches should be reported and additional measurements should be made. The use of gel or saline contrast sonography was preferred over standard transvaginal sonography but was not considered mandatory if intrauterine fluid was present. Variation in pressure generated by the transvaginal probe can facilitate imaging, and Doppler imaging can be used to differentiate between a niche and other uterine abnormalities, but neither was considered mandatory.Conclusion: Consensus between niche experts was achieved regarding ultrasonographic niche evaluation. © 2018 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Objective To develop a uniform classification and standardized reporting system of ultrasound findings of adenomyosis using the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) criteria. Method The opinion presented in this manuscript was built based on a thorough discussion among all authors, including a Delphi procedure. Selected images and videos of typical cases of the different morphological variations of adenomyosis were used in the debates. Results A classification and reporting system of different types of adenomyosis based on ultrasound was agreed upon including (1) identification of adenomyosis based on MUSA criteria, (2) disease location (anterior, posterior, left lateral, right lateral, fundal), (3) classification of the lesions as focal or diffuse, (4) presence or absence of intralesional cysts, (5) myometrial layer involvement (junctional zone, myometrium, serosal involvement), (6) disease extent (< 25%, 25‐50%, > 50% of uterine volume affected by adenomyosis) and (7) lesion size. Conclusions We proposes a uniform classification and reporting system of different types of adenomyosis based on ultrasound. The clinical relevance of this approach needs to be evaluated in further studies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Objective: To develop a standardized sonographic evaluation and reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) in the first trimester, for use by both general gynecology and expert clinics.Methods: A modified Delphi procedure was carried out, in which 28 international experts in obstetric and gynecological ultrasonography were invited to participate. Extensive experience in the use of ultrasound to evaluate Cesarean section (CS) scars in early pregnancy and/or publications concerning CSP or niche evaluation was required to participate. Relevant items for the detection and evaluation of CSP were determined based on the results of a literature search. Consensus was predefined as a level of agreement of at least 70% for each item, and a minimum of three Delphi rounds were planned (two online questionnaires and one group meeting).Results: Sixteen experts participated in the Delphi study and four Delphi rounds were performed. In total, 58 items were determined to be relevant. We differentiated between basic measurements to be performed in general practice and advanced measurements for expert centers or for research purposes. The panel also formulated advice on indications for referral to an expert clinic. Consensus was reached for all 58 items on the definition, terminology, relevant items for evaluation and reporting of CSP. It was recommended that the first CS scar evaluation to determine the location of the pregnancy should be performed at 6–7 weeks' gestation using transvaginal ultrasound. The use of magnetic resonance imaging was not considered to add value in the diagnosis of CSP. A CSP was defined as a pregnancy with implantation in, or in close contact with, the niche. The experts agreed that a CSP can occur only when a niche is present and not in relation to a healed CS scar. Relevant sonographic items to record included gestational sac (GS) size, vascularity, location in relation to the uterine vessels, thickness of the residual myometrium and location of the pregnancy in relation to the uterine cavity and serosa. According to its location, a CSP can be classified as: (1) CSP in which the largest part of the GS protrudes towards the uterine cavity; (2) CSP in which the largest part of the GS is embedded in the myometrium but does not cross the serosal contour; and (3) CSP in which the GS is partially located beyond the outer contour of the cervix or uterus. The type of CSP may change with advancing gestation. Future studies are needed to validate this reporting system and the value of the different CSP types.Conclusion: Consensus was achieved among experts regarding the sonographic evaluation and reporting of CSP in the first trimester. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Caesarean section can result in an indentation of the myometrium at the site of the Caesarean scar, called a niche. Niches can cause symptoms of abnormal uterine blood loss, dysmenorrhoea, chronic pelvic pain and dyspareunia and are possibly related to subfertility. Various other explanations for the cause of subfertility after Caesarean section have been proposed in the literature, such as uterine pathology, intra-abdominal adhesions and women’s reproductive choices. Not all niches cause symptoms and the relation with subfertility and a niche in the uterine scar still needs further study since direct evidence is lacking so far. Based on the limited available evidence, and in combination with observations made during sonographic hysteroscopic evaluations and laparoscopic niche repair, we propose and discuss three hypothetical mechanisms: (i) the environment for sperm penetration and implantation may be detrimental; (ii) there could be a physical barrier to embryo transfer and implantation; and (iii) psychogenic factors may reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. Several innovative surgical treatments have been developed and are being implemented for niche-related problems. Promising results are reported, but more evidence is needed before further implementation in daily practice. The additional value of niche resections should be compared to expectant management or fertility therapies, such as ART, in randomized controlled trials. Therefore, our suggested hypotheses should, for the time being, not be used for justification of any specific procedures outside clinical trials.

Cesarean delivery (CD) is the most commonly performed surgery worldwide.¹ A long-term complication of a CD is an unhealed defect in the uterine myometrium, which is often referred to as a uterine niche or cesarean scar defect. This entity is formally defined by the European Niche Taskforce as an “indentation in the uterine myometrium of at least 2 mm at the site of the cesarean scar assessed by transvaginal ultrasound.”² A niche is observed in 60% of women after a CD and 25% of all women have a large defect with a residual myometrium of less than 3 mm.^3,4 Approximately 30% to 40% of women with a CD niche experience symptoms⁵ such as postmenstrual spotting, dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility.^3,6-8 Symptomatic niches can have a profound impact on patients’ quality of life.⁹