Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging Modalities to Preoperatively Detect Fibroid Location

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reproductive Surgery

  • 444 Accesses

Abstract

Fibroids are common in women of reproductive age (and are often multiple). Myomectomy enhances fertility, but for this option to be appropriate accurate preoperative imaging is crucial. The goal of preoperative fibroid imaging is to accurately assess fibroid size, number, position, and site to be able to offer optimal surgical management, and to ensure that no unexpected findings are present that will change the planned approach. This chapter addresses imaging modalities that may be employed to detect and properly characterize fibroids prior to uterine surgery. The 2018 FIGO subclassification system for reporting fibroids is examined. Although fortunately most uterine masses are benign fibroids, the differential diagnosis is expanded and imaging techniques for differentiating fibroids from other entities are assessed. The utility of various imaging techniques is reviewed, with a heavy emphasis on the two main-stays in fibroid imaging, ultrasound (including saline infusion sonohysterography) and magnetic resonance imaging. The relative merits of the various preoperative imaging techniques are discussed. Over 40 illustrative examples demonstrating these points are presented for transabdominal ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound, saline infusion sonohysterography, hysterosalpingography, and magnetic resonance imaging.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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. Stewart EA. Uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(17):1646–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilde S, Scott-Barrett S. Radiological appearances of uterine fibroids. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;19(3):222–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Fraser IS, Committee FMD. The two FIGO systems for normal and abnormal uterine bleeding symptoms and classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years: 2018 revisions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;143(3):393–408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhagavath B, Ellie G, Griffiths KM, Winter T, Alur-Gupta S, Richardson C, et al. Uterine malformations: an update of diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2017;72(6):377–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stewart E. Uterine fibroids (leiomyomas): differentiating fibroids from uterine sarcomas. In: Post T, editor. UpToDate. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  6. DeMulder D, Ascher SM. Uterine leiomyosarcoma: can MRI differentiate leiomyosarcoma from benign leiomyoma before treatment? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(6):1405–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Oh J, Park SB, Park HJ, Lee ES. Ultrasound features of uterine sarcomas. Ultrasound Q. 2019;35(4):376–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenbaum L. N-of-1 policymaking — tragedy, trade-offs, and the demise of morcellation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(10):986–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Van den Bosch T, Coosemans A, Morina M, Timmerman D, Amant F. Screening for uterine tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;26(2):257–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Thomassin-Naggara I, Dechoux S, Bonneau C, Morel A, Rouzier R, Carette MF, et al. How to differentiate benign from malignant myometrial tumours using MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2306–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith J, Zawaideh JP, Sahin H, Freeman S, Bolton H, Addley HC. Differentiating uterine sarcoma from leiomyoma: BET(1)T(2)ER check! Br J Radiol. 2021;94:20201332.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, Morisawa N, Fujimoto K, Mikami Y, et al. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating uterine sarcomas from benign leiomyomas. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(4):723–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sun S, Bonaffini PA, Nougaret S, Fournier L, Dohan A, Chong J, et al. How to differentiate uterine leiomyosarcoma from leiomyoma with imaging. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019;100(10):619–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mendez RJ. MRI to differentiate atypical leiomyoma from uterine sarcoma. Radiology. 2020;297(2):372–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abdel Wahab C, Jannot AS, Bonaffini PA, Bourillon C, Cornou C, Lefrere-Belda MA, et al. Diagnostic algorithm to differentiate benign atypical leiomyomas from malignant uterine sarcomas with diffusion-weighted MRI. Radiology. 2020;297(3):E347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kaji Y, Sugimura K. Spectrum of FDG PET/CT findings of uterine tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):737–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lakhman Y, Reinhold C. Malignant diseases of the uterus. In: Hodler J, Kubik-Huch RA, von Schulthess GK, editors. Diseases of the abdomen and pelvis 2018–2021: diagnostic imaging. Cham (CH): IDKD Book; 2018. p. 197–206.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Serno J, Meinhold-Heerlein I, Schrading S, Papathemelis T. Does any imaging method allow distinguishing between myoma and sarcoma? Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2015;4(3):149–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Arleo EK, Schwartz PE, Hui P, McCarthy S. Review of leiomyoma variants. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(4):912–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kurman R, Carcangiu M, Herrington C, Young R. WHO classification of tumours of female re-productive organs. 4th ed. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Luong E, Ludwin A, Winter T, Yaklic J, Maxwell RA, Bhagavath B, et al. Saline-air hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography is equivalent to the modified hysterosalpingogram following hysteroscopic sterilization. Ultrasound Q. 2020;36(2):138–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Robertshaw IM, Sroga JM, Batcheller AE, Martinez AM, Winter TC 3rd, Sinning K, et al. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with a saline-air device is equivalent to hysterosalpingography only in the presence of tubal patency. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35(6):1215–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Rijswijk J, van Welie N, Dreyer K, van Hooff MHA, de Bruin JP, Verhoeve HR, et al. The FOAM study: is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Womens Health. 2018;18(1):64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wadhwa L, Rani P, Bhatia P. Comparative prospective study of hysterosalpingography and hysteroscopy in infertile women. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017;10(2):73–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Acholonu UC, Silberzweig J, Stein DE, Keltz M. Hysterosalpingography versus sonohysterography for intrauterine abnormalities. JSLS. 2011;15(4):471–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Laifer-Narin S, Ragavendra N, Parmenter EK, Grant EG. False-normal appearance of the endometrium on conventional transvaginal sonography: comparison with saline hysterosonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(1):129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Laberge PY, Abbott J. Imaging for polyps and leiomyomas in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):1425–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Neele SJ, Marchien van Baal W, van der Mooren MJ, Kessel H, Netelenbos JC, Kenemans P. Ultrasound assessment of the endometrium in healthy, asymptomatic early post-menopausal women: saline infusion sonohysterography versus transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16(3):254–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ragni G, Diaferia D, Vegetti W, Colombo M, Arnoldi M, Crosignani PG. Effectiveness of sonohysterography in infertile patient work-up: a comparison with transvaginal ultrasonography and hysteroscopy. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2005;59(4):184–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nannini R, Chelo E, Branconi F, Tantini C, Scarselli GF. Dynamic echohysteroscopy: a new diagnostic technique in the study of female infertility. Acta Eur Fertil. 1981;12(2):165–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bradley L. Assessment of abnormal uterine bleeding: 3 office-based tools. OBG Manag. 2003;15:51–66.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lindheim SR, Sprague C, Winter TC 3rd. Hysterosalpingography and sonohysterography: lessons in technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(1):24–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ahmadi F, Jahangiri N, Zafarani F, Vosough A. Pain perception and side effects during saline infusion sonohysterography with a balloon catheter: a randomized comparative study of cervical versus intrauterine catheter placement. J Ultrasound Med. 2020;39(9):1829–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Spieldoch RL, Winter TC, Schouweiler C, Ansay S, Evans MD, Lindheim SR. Optimal catheter placement during sonohysterography: a randomized controlled trial comparing cervical to uterine placement. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dueholm M, Forman A, Jensen ML, Laursen H, Kracht P. Transvaginal sonography combined with saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluating the uterine cavity in premenopausal patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(1):54–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Parker JD, Alvero RJ, Luterzo J, Segars JH, Armstrong AY. Assessment of resident competency in the performance of sonohysterography: does the level of training impact the accuracy? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(2):582–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Epstein E, Ramirez A, Skoog L, Valentin L. Transvaginal sonography, saline contrast sonohysterography and hysteroscopy for the investigation of women with postmenopausal bleeding and endometrium > 5 mm. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(2):157–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Berry E, Lindheim SR, Connor JP, Hartenbach EM, Schink JC, Harter J, et al. Sonohysterography and endometrial cancer: incidence and functional viability of disseminated malignant cells. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(3):240.e1–.e8.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP, Valentin L, Rasmussen CK, Votino A, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(3):284–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Evaluation of the uterine cavity with magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, and diagnostic hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(2):350–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jha RC, Ascher SM, Imaoka I, Spies JB. Symptomatic fibroleiomyomata: MR imaging of the uterus before and after uterine arterial embolization. Radiology. 2000;217(1):228–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sadowski EA, Ochsner JE, Riherd JM, Korosec FR, Agrawal G, Pritts EA, et al. MR hysterosalpingography with an angiographic time-resolved 3D pulse sequence: assessment of tubal patency. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(5):1381–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cooperberg P. The endometrium looks thick: what does that mean? In: Cooperberg P, Charboneau J, Winter T, editors. 2002 syllabus: categorical course in diagnostic radiology: findings at US –what do they mean? Oak Brook, IL: RSNA; 2002. p. 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Berridge DL, Winter TC. Saline infusion sonohysterography: technique, indications, and imaging findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23(1):97–112; quiz 4–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TCW, Abdominal Imaging Division, Department of Radiology and Imaging Science, University of Utah Health Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Thomas Winter

Authors
  1. Thomas Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Winter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA

    Steven R. Lindheim

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    John C. Petrozza

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Winter, T. (2022). Imaging Modalities to Preoperatively Detect Fibroid Location. In: Lindheim, S.R., Petrozza, J.C. (eds) Reproductive Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05240-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05240-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05239-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05240-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation