SONOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT OF ENDOMETRIAL THICKNESS AND UTERUS SIZE IN INFERTILE WOMEN

Abstract

Ultrasonography is widely used during female infertility evaluation because it enables non-invasive assessment of the endometrium, uterine morphology, uterine orientation, and associated pelvic abnormalities. To evaluate uterus size and endometrial thickness in infertile women using ultrasonography and to describe associations with age and menstrual-cycle phase. A cross-sectional study was conducted over six months among 178 infertile female patients at DHQ Teaching Hospital Swabi and Iqra Memorial Diagnostic Center, Attock. Convenience sampling was used. Grayscale transabdominal ultrasonography was performed using a Mindray system with a 3.5-MHz probe in longitudinal and transverse planes. Endometrial thickness, uterus size, uterus position, menstrual-cycle phase, and the presence of uterine pathologies were recorded. Data were analyzed in SPSS using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Among 178 participants, 92 (51.7%) were aged 26-35 years, 62 (34.8%) were aged 15-25 years, and 24 (13.5%) were above 35 years. Most had been married for 1-10 years (71.3%). Endometrial thickness ranged from 4 to 14 mm in the thesis tables; the highest single reported frequency was 29 participants at a reported 7-mm category. The most frequent uterine-size category was 7x4 cm (14.6%). The uterus was anteverted in 92.1%. No uterine pathology was recorded in 39.9%; PCOs were reported in 30.9%, fibroids in 9.0%, and nabothian cysts in 6.7%. The thesis reported significant associations of uterus size with age and menstrual cycle (p=0.000 for both), uterine pathologies with age (p=0.007) and menstrual cycle (p=0.000), and endometrial thickness with age and menstrual cycle (p=0.000 for both). Ultrasound was useful for characterizing endometrial thickness, uterine dimensions, uterine position, and associated pelvic findings in women undergoing infertility evaluation. The findings should be interpreted as descriptive associations because the study was cross-sectional, used convenience sampling, and did not include a fertile comparison group or an independent diagnostic reference standard.