Laparoscopic, gynecographic and ultrasonographic vs. clinical evaluation of a pelvic mass.

One hundred fourteen patients with a clinically proven or suspected pelvic mass were subjected to pelvic examination and ultrasonography. Gynecography and laparoscopy were carried out in only 45 patients; those procedures were contraindicated in the other patients. The study showed that in patients with a large pelvic mass both clinical examination and ultrasonography had high diagnostic accuracy; therefore, the latter procedure does not seem to be necessary in the preoperative investigation of these patients. However, in patients with a small pelvic mass an additional diagnostic tool is recommended--ultrasonography for uterine masses and laparoscopy for adnexal ones.