Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic approach to the magnetic resonance imaging-based differential diagnosis of congenital Müllerian duct anomalies and their mimics

  • Pictorial Essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Müllerian duct anomalies (MDAs) represent a wide spectrum of developmental abnormalities related to various gynecologic and obstetric complications, including primary amenorrhea, infertility, and endometriosis. The use of diverse imaging modalities, in conjunction with clinical information, provide important clues to the diagnosis of MDAs. Diagnostic imaging work-up for MDAs often begins with hysterosalpingography (HSG) and/or ultrasonography (US). Although HSG and/or US may suffice to detect the presence of a uterine abnormality, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is generally needed to classify the abnormality into a specific MDA category. MR imaging has been gaining in popularity for use in evaluating MDAs, by virtue of its noninvasiveness, lack of ionizing radiation, and capability for multiplanar imaging and soft tissue characterization. Abnormalities in the external uterine fundal contour are readily recognized with MR imaging, allowing for clear differentiation between a fusion anomaly, such as a uterus didelphys or a bicornuate uterus, and a resorption anomaly, such as a septate uterus. Furthermore, MR imaging enables clear depiction of a rudimentary uterine horn in a unicornuate uterus. Accurate differential diagnosis of MDAs on the basis of their characteristic MR imaging findings is crucial, because the rates of gynecologic and obstetric complications vary considerably among MDAs. The diagnostic accuracy may be enhanced by adopting a systematic approach to MR imaging-based differential diagnosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A (2012) Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics 32:E233–E250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM (2004) Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233:19–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Devi Wold AS, Pham N, Arici A (2006) Anatomic factors in recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med 24:25–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Li S, Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Hricak H (2000) Association of renal agenesis and Müllerian duct anomalies. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24:829–834

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Oppelt P, Renner SP, Kellermann A, et al. (2006) Clinical aspects of Mayer–Rokitansky–Kuester–Hauser syndrome: recommendations for clinical diagnosis and staging. Hum Reprod 21:792–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pittock ST, Babovic-Vuksanovic D, Lteif A (2005) Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser anomaly and its associated malformations. Am J Med Genet A 135:314–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gell JS (2003) Müllerian anomalies. Semin Reprod Med 21:375–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kimberley N, Hutson JM, Southwell BR, Grover SR (2012) Vaginal agenesis, the hymen, and associated anomalies. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 25:54–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Robbins JB, Parry JP, Guite KM, et al. (2012) MRI of pregnancy-related issues: Müllerian duct anomalies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:302–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marcal L, Nothaft MA, Coelho F, Volpato R, Iyer R (2011) Müllerian duct anomalies: MR imaging. Abdom Imaging 36:756–764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Buttram VC Jr, Gibbons WE (1979) Müllerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (An analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 32:40–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Buttram VC, Gomel V, Siegler A, et al. (1988) The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49:944–955

    Google Scholar 

  13. Olpin JD, Heilbrun M (2009) Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Clin Obstet Gynecol 52:40–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Giusti S, Fruzzetti E, Perini D, et al. (2011) Diagnosis of a variant of Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome: useful MRI findings. Abdom Imaging 36:753–755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lamarca M, Navarro R, Ballesteros ME, et al. (2009) Leiomyomas in both uterine remnants in a woman with the Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 91(931):e13–e15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pompili G, Munari A, Franceschelli G, et al. (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Radiol Med 114:811–826

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Reinhold C, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al. (1997) Primary amenorrhea: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology 203:383–390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhou JH, Sun J, Yang CB, et al. (2010) Long-term outcomes of transvestibular vaginoplasty with pelvic peritoneum in 182 patients with Rokitansky’s syndrome. Fertil Steril 94:2281–2285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Morcel K, Camborieux L, Programme de Recherches sur les Aplasies Müllériennes, Guerrier D (2007) Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser (MRKH) syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2:13–21

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jurkiewicz B, Matuszewski L, Cislak R, Rybak D (2006) Rokitansky–Kustner–Hauser syndrome—a case report. Eur J Pediatr Surg 16:135–137

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yoo RE, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH (2013) Magnetic resonance evaluation of Müllerian remnants in Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Korean J Radiol 14:233–239

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fiaschetti V, Taglieri A, Gisone V, Coco I, Simonetti G (2012) Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging. Role of imaging to identify and evaluate the uncommon variation in development of the female genital tract. J Radiol Case Rep 6:17–24

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Junqueira BL, Allen LM, Spitzer RF, et al. (2009) Müllerian duct anomalies and mimics in children and adolescents: correlative intraoperative assessment with clinical imaging. Radiographics 29:1085–1103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Olive DL, Henderson DY (1987) Endometriosis and Müllerian anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 69(3 Pt 1):412–415

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ugur M, Turan C, Mungan T, et al. (1995) Endometriosis in association with Müllerian anomalies. Gynecol Obstet Invest 40:261–264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jayasinghe Y, Rane A, Stalewski H, Grover S (2005) The presentation and early diagnosis of the rudimentary uterine horn. Obstet Gynecol 105:1456–1467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, et al. (1990) Müllerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 176:715–720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH (1992) Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 183:795–800

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang B, Zhou JH, Jin HM (2011) Torsion of a rudimentary uterine horn at 22 weeks of gestation. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 37:919–920

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sarto GE, Simpson JL (1978) Abnormalities of the Müllerian and Wolffian duct systems. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 14(6C):37–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Del Vescovo R, Battisti S, Di Paola V, et al. (2012) Herlyn–Werner–Wunderlich syndrome: MRI findings, radiological guide (two cases and literature review), and differential diagnosis. BMC Med Imaging 12:4

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Han BH, Park SB, Lee YJ, Lee KS, Lee YK (2013) Uterus didelphys with blind hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis (Herlyn–Werner–Wunderlich syndrome) suspected on the presence of hydrocolpos on prenatal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 41:380–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Massari C, Candiani GB (1989) Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol 74:844–847

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Candiani GB, Fedele L, Parazzini F, Zamberletti D (1990) Reproductive prognosis after abdominal metroplasty in bicornuate or septate uterus: a life table analysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 97:613–617

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG (1996) Congenital Müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril 65:523–528

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, et al. (2011) Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:371–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Propst AM, Hill JA 3rd (2000) Anatomic factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med 18:341–350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fedele L, Bianchi S (1995) Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 22:473–489

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Fayez JA (1986) Comparison between abdominal and hysteroscopic metroplasty. Obstet Gynecol 68:399–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, et al. (1997) Reproductive impact of congenital Müllerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 12:2277–2281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Heinonen PK, Saarikoski S, Pystynen P (1982) Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies. An evaluation of 182 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 61:157–162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kupesic S, Kurjak A (1998) Septate uterus: detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 17:631–636

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zreik TG, Troiano RN, Ghoussoub RA, et al. (1998) Myometrial tissue in uterine septa. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 5:155–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chandler TM, Machan LS, Cooperberg PL, Harris AC, Chang SD (2009) Müllerian duct anomalies: from diagnosis to intervention. Br J Radiol 82:1034–1042

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tulandi T, Arronet GH, McInnes RA (1980) Arcuate and bicornuate uterine anomalies and infertility. Fertil Steril 34:362–364

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Nakhal RS, Hall-Craggs M, Freeman A, et al. (2013) Evaluation of retained testes in adolescent girls and women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Radiology 268:153–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hughes IA, Deeb A (2006) Androgen resistance. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 20:577–598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cools M, Drop SL, Wolffenbuttel KP, Oosterhuis JW, Looijenga LH (2006) Germ cell tumors in the intersex gonad: old paths, new directions, moving frontiers. Endocr Rev 27:468–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Deans R, Creighton SM, Liao LM, Conway GS (2012) Timing of gonadectomy in adult women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS): patient preferences and clinical evidence. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 76:894–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Burgis J (2001) Obstructive Müllerian anomalies: case report, diagnosis, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:338–344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 28 Yongon-Dong, Chongno-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Roh-Eul Yoo, Jeong Yeon Cho, Sang Youn Kim & Seung Hyup Kim

Authors
  1. Roh-Eul Yoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeong Yeon Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sang Youn Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seung Hyup Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeong Yeon Cho.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 5366 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 5502 kb)

Supplementary material 4 (TIFF 5795 kb)

Supplementary material 5 (TIFF 4832 kb)

Supplementary material 6 (TIFF 4547 kb)

Supplementary material 7 (TIFF 4415 kb)

Supplementary material 8 (TIFF 2866 kb)

Supplementary material 9 (TIFF 2889 kb)

Supplementary material 10 (TIFF 2852 kb)

Supplementary material 11 (TIFF 2652 kb)

Supplementary material 12 (TIFF 2611 kb)

Supplementary material 13 (TIFF 2969 kb)

Supplementary material 14 (TIFF 2989 kb)

Supplementary material 15 (TIFF 3089 kb)

Supplementary material 16 (TIFF 3054 kb)

Supplementary material 17 (TIFF 4561 kb)

Supplementary material 18 (TIFF 4340 kb)

Supplementary material 19 (TIFF 4370 kb)

Supplementary material 20 (TIFF 11356 kb)

Supplementary material 21 (TIFF 11329 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoo, RE., Cho, J.Y., Kim, S.Y. et al. A systematic approach to the magnetic resonance imaging-based differential diagnosis of congenital Müllerian duct anomalies and their mimics. Abdom Imaging 40, 192–206 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0195-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0195-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation