scholarly journals Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Bermejo ◽  
P. Martínez Ten ◽  
R. Cantarero ◽  
D. Diaz ◽  
J. Pérez Pedregosa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Mullerian Duct ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Müllerian Duct ◽  
Müllerian Duct Anomalies ◽  
Mullerian Duct Anomalies

Role of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Assessment of Müllerian Duct Anomalies

QJM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S B Ali ◽  
A M Salama ◽  
Z A Mahmoud
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Mullerian Duct ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Müllerian Duct ◽  
Uterine Anomalies ◽  
Müllerian Duct Anomalies ◽  
Mullerian Duct Anomalies

Abstract Background Müllerian duct anomalies (MDAs) occur as a result from abnormal development of the uterus, cervix, and upper vagina. Many classification systems are presented, aiming to provide a more suitable and accurate categorization of female genital anomalies. Ultrasonography (US), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), or a combination of both are considered the gold standard in evaluation of uterine anomalies. Aim of the Work The main purpose of the study is to determine the diagnostic role of MRI and US in assessment of Müllerian duct anomalies and its subtypes. Patients and Methods This prospective analytical study was conducted at 14 patients suspected to have MDAs at Al-Demerdash Hospital-Ain Shams University in the period from September 2017 to May 2018, Their ages ranged from 15-40 year-old. All cases underwent Pelvic U/S and MRI, findings were correlated with laparoscopy. Results In this study the Mullerian duct anomalies were categorized into four groups: (a) congenital absence of the Müllerian ducts, or the Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome (n = 8), (b) disorders of vertical fusion (n = 1),(c) disorders of lateral fusion (n = 3) and (d) MDAs mimics(n = 2).MRI allowed correct diagnosis of 14 uterine anomalies (accuracy 100%) whereas US was correct in 13 out of 14 cases (accuracy 92.8%). Conclusion Two dimensional ultrasound stands as the first imaging modality of choice. MRI remains the reference imaging modality in diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies and it is subtypes and should be preserved for doubtful or complex cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document