Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Congenital Malformation of the Uterus

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
MRI of the Female and Male Pelvis

  • 1961 Accesses

Abstract

Congenital uterine anomalies (mullerian duct anomalies) comprise a spectrum of developmental malformations associated with varying degrees of adverse reproductive outcomes. Although traditionally diagnosed by hysterosalpingography or ultrasound, further elaboration of the findings frequently was performed with laparoscopy/laparotomy and hysteroscopy The need for diagnostic surgical intervention has largely been eclipsed with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging, which has become the imaging modality of choice for characterization of congenital mullerian anomalies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Grimbizis GF, Campo R (2012) Clinical approach for the classification of congenital uterine malformations. Gynecol Surg 9:119–129

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grimbizis GF, Campo R (2010) Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: the need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril 94:401–4017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American Fertility Society (1988) The AFS classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49:944–955

    Google Scholar 

  4. Buttram VC, Gibbons WE (1979) Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 32:40–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Baert AL, Knauth M, Sartor K, Kubik-Huch R (2007) MR and CT of the female pelvis. Congenital malformation of the uterus: 50–59

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nahum GG (1998) Uterine anomalies. How common are they, and what is their distribution among subtypes? J Reprod Med 43:877–888

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Acien P, Acien MI (2011) The history of female genital tract malformation classifications and proposal of an updated system. Hum Reprod Update 17:693–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Saleem SN (2003) MR imaging diagnosis of uterovaginal anomalies: current state of the art. Radiographics 23:e13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Oppelt P, Renner SP, Kellermann A, Brucker S, Hauser GA, Ludwig KS, Strissel PL, Strick R, Wallwiener D, Beckmann MW (2006) Clinical aspects of Mayer–Rokitansky–Kuester–Hauser syndrome: recommendations for clinical diagnosis and staging. Hum Reprod 21:792–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Junqueira BL 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 

  12. 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 

  13. Reuter KL, Daly DC, Cohen SM (1989) Septate versus bicornuate uteri: errors in imaging diagnosis. Radiology 172:749–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. van Gils AP, Than RT, Falke TH, Peters AA (1989) Abnormalities of the uterus and cervix after diethylstilbestrol exposure: correlation of findings on MR and hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 153:1235–1238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mazouni C, Girard G, Deter R, Haumonte J-B, Blanc B, Bretelle F (2008) Diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies in adults: evaluation of practice. Fertil Steril 89:219–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dee Olpin J, Heilbrun M (2009) Imaging of Mullerian duct anomalies. Clin Obstet Gynecol 52:40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Braun P, Grau FV, Pons RM, Enguix DP (2005) Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study. Eur J Radiol 53:274–279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bermejo C, Ten Martinez P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Perez Pedregosa J, Barro E, Labrador E, Ruiz Lopez L (2010) Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance in the magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:593–601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, Meriggiola C, Gubbini G, Pilu G, Pelusi C, Pelusi G (2009) Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 92:808–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jurkovic D (2002) Three-dimensional ultrasound in gynecology: a critical evaluation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19:109–117

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, Secaf E, Laros RK Jr, Hill EC (1990) Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 176:715–720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Church DG, Vancil JM, Vasanawala SS (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging for uterine and vaginal anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 21:379–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Robert N, Troiano MD (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of mullerian duct anomalies of the uterus. Top Magn Reson Imaging 14(4):269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Olson MC, Posniak HV, Tempany CM, Dudiak CM (1992) MR imaging of the female pelvic region. Radiographics 12(3):445–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Epilman M, Dinan D, Gee MS, Servaes S, Lee EY, Darge K (2013) Mullerian duct and related anomalies in children and adolescents. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 21(4):773–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaufman RH, Adam E, Hatch EE et al (2000) Continued follow-up of pregnancy outcomes in diethylstilbestrol-exposed offspring. Obstet Gynecol 96:483–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Giudici MN, Candiani GB (1990) Magnetic resonance imaging in Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 16:593–596

    Google Scholar 

  30. Brody JM, Koelliker SL, Frishman GN (1998) Unicornuate uterus: imaging appearance, associated anomalies, and clinical applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:1341–1347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Agnoli B, Tozzi L, Vignali M (1996) Urinary tract anomalies associated with unicornuate uterus. J Urol 155:847–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Madureira AJ, Mariz CM, Bernardes JC, Ramos IM (2006) Uterus didelphys with obstructing hemivaginal septum and ipsilateral renal agenesis. Radiology 239:602–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Verona, Piazzale Scuro, Verona, Italy

    Valerio Di Paola, Eugenio Oliboni, Daniela Avolio, Riccardo Manfredi & Roberto Pozzi Mucelli

Authors
  1. Valerio Di Paola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eugenio Oliboni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniela Avolio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Riccardo Manfredi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roberto Pozzi Mucelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valerio Di Paola .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Verona, “G.B.Ross” University Hospital, Verona, Italy

    Riccardo Manfredi

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Verona, “G.B.Ross” University Hospital, Verona, Italy

    Roberto Pozzi Mucelli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Di Paola, V., Oliboni, E., Avolio, D., Manfredi, R., Mucelli, R.P. (2015). Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Congenital Malformation of the Uterus. In: Manfredi, R., Pozzi Mucelli, R. (eds) MRI of the Female and Male Pelvis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09659-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09659-9_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09658-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09659-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation