Lesion-specific comparison of pelvic venous ultrasound, dynamic magnetic resonance venography and digital subtraction venography in pelvic vein disorders

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of venous doppler ultrasound (DUS) and dynamic magnetic resonance venography (dMRV) with digital subtraction venography (DSV) venography in the assessment of anatomical lesions associated with pelvic vein disorders (PeVD). METHODS: Forty women with symptoms of PeVD indicated for endovascular surgical treatment were included in this study. Patients were investigated using DUS and dynamic venous dMRV to assess gonadal vein reflux, internal iliac vein reflux, left renal vein stenosis, and left common iliac vein stenosis. Intraoperative phlebography images, considered the gold standard, were compared to DUS and MRI to assess the level of agreement using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and overall accuracy were calculated for DUS and dMRV. RESULTS: No significant agreement was identified between either DUS or dMRV and DSV for grading LRV stenosis (κ = 0.031, p-value: 0.736 for DUS; and κ = 0.146, p-value: 0.151 for dMRV). For LCIV stenosis, DUS showed moderate agreement, whereas dMRV demonstrated no meaningful concordance (κ = 0.490; p < .001 for DUS; and κ = 0.211; p = 0.056 for dMRV). In contrast, substantial to excellent agreement with DSV was observed for gonadal vein reflux using dMRV (κ = 0.806; p < .001) and moderate agreement using DUS (κ = 0.500; p < .001). Neither modality reliably assessed internal iliac vein reflux. Direct comparison between DUS and dMRV showed moderate agreement for gonadal reflux and LRV stenosis, and fair agreement for LCIV stenosis. For detecting gonadal reflux, DUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% and dMRV of 93.3%, both with high specificity. Sensitivity for internal iliac vein reflux was low, though specificity remained high for both modalities. CONCLUSION: DUS and dMRV demonstrated strong concordance with DSV in detecting gonadal vein reflux. DUS and dMRV are suboptimal imaging modalities in the evaluation of LRV and CIV stenosis. Both DUS and dMRV are unreliable in the detection of internal iliac vein reflux.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2026.102517
Primary Topic
Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Lesion-specific comparison of pelvic venous ultrasound, dynamic magnetic resonance venography and digital subtraction venography in pelvic vein disorders

Andrei Skromov de Albuquerque, Walter Campos Júnior, Nélson De Luccia, Lucas Monteiro Delgado et al.
Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
article

Lesion-specific comparison of pelvic venous ultrasound, dynamic magnetic resonance venography and digital subtraction venography in pelvic vein disorders

Andrei Skromov de Albuquerque, Walter Campos Júnior, Nélson De Luccia, Lucas Monteiro Delgado, Antônio Eduardo Zerati, Pedro Puech Leao, Mayara Leite Coutinho, Joseph Elia Benabou, Marcos Messina, Vinicius Bertoldi
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of venous doppler ultrasound (DUS) and dynamic magnetic resonance venography (dMRV) with digital subtraction venography (DSV) venography in the assessment of anatomical lesions associated with pelvic vein disorders (PeVD). METHODS: Forty women with symptoms of PeVD indicated for endovascular surgical treatment were included in this study. Patients were investigated using DUS and dynamic venous dMRV to assess gonadal vein reflux, internal iliac vein reflux, left renal vein stenosis, and left common iliac vein stenosis. Intraoperative phlebography images, considered the gold standard, were compared to DUS and MRI to assess the level of agreement using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and overall accuracy were calculated for DUS and dMRV. RESULTS: No significant agreement was identified between either DUS or dMRV and DSV for grading LRV stenosis (κ = 0.031, p-value: 0.736 for DUS; and κ = 0.146, p-value: 0.151 for dMRV). For LCIV stenosis, DUS showed moderate agreement, whereas dMRV demonstrated no meaningful concordance (κ = 0.490; p < .001 for DUS; and κ = 0.211; p = 0.056 for dMRV). In contrast, substantial to excellent agreement with DSV was observed for gonadal vein reflux using dMRV (κ = 0.806; p < .001) and moderate agreement using DUS (κ = 0.500; p < .001). Neither modality reliably assessed internal iliac vein reflux. Direct comparison between DUS and dMRV showed moderate agreement for gonadal reflux and LRV stenosis, and fair agreement for LCIV stenosis. For detecting gonadal reflux, DUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% and dMRV of 93.3%, both with high specificity. Sensitivity for internal iliac vein reflux was low, though specificity remained high for both modalities. CONCLUSION: DUS and dMRV demonstrated strong concordance with DSV in detecting gonadal vein reflux. DUS and dMRV are suboptimal imaging modalities in the evaluation of LRV and CIV stenosis. Both DUS and dMRV are unreliable in the detection of internal iliac vein reflux.

Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR), Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.