Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 243–250 | Cite as

MR imaging in the triage of pregnant patients with acute abdominal and pelvic pain

  • Aytekin OtoEmail author
  • Randy D. Ernst
  • Labib M. Ghulmiyyah
  • Thomas K. Nishino
  • Douglas Hughes
  • Gregory Chaljub
  • George Saade



To retrospectively assess the performance of MR imaging in the evaluation and triage of pregnant patients presenting with acute abdominal or pelvic pain.

Method and materials

MRI studies of pregnant patients who were referred for acute abdominal pain between 2001 and 2007 were included. MR images were retrospectively reviewed and compared with surgical and pathologic findings and clinical follow-up data. Analysis of imaging findings included evaluation of the visceral organs, bowel and mesentery, appendix (for presence of appendicitis), ovaries (detection and adnexal masses were evaluated), focal inflammation, presence of abscesses, and any other abnormal findings.


A total of 118 pregnant patients were included. MR findings were inconclusive in 2 patients and were positive for acute appendicitis in 11 patients (n = 9 confirmed by surgery, n = 2 improved without surgery). One patient with inconclusive MR had surgically confirmed appendicitis; the other patient with inconclusive MR had surgically confirmed adnexal torsion. Other surgical/interventional diagnoses suggested by MR imaging were adnexal torsion (n = 4), abscess (n = 4), acute cholecystitis (n = 1), and gastric volvulus (n = 1). Two patients with MR diagnosis of torsion improved without surgery. One patient with MR diagnosis of abscess had biliary cystadenoma at surgery. The rest of the MR diagnoses above were confirmed surgically or interventionally. MR imaging was normal in 67 patients and demonstrated medically treatable etiology in 28 patients: adnexal lesions (n = 9), urinary pathology (n = 6), cholelithiasis (n = 4), degenerating fibroid (n = 3), DVT (n = 2), hernia (n = 1), colitis (n = 1), thick terminal ileum (n = 1), rectus hematoma (n = 1). Three of these patients had negative surgical exploration and one had adnexal mass excision during pregnancy. Other patients were discharged with medical treatment. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive values (ppv), and negative predictive values (npv) of MR imaging for acute appendicitis, and surgical/ interventional diagnoses were 90.0% vs. 88.9%, 98.1% vs. 95.0%, 97.5% vs. 94.1%, 81.8% vs. 76.2%, 99.1% vs. 97.9%, respectively.


MR imaging is an excellent modality for diagnosis of acute appendicitis and exclusion of diseases requiring surgical/interventional treatment. Therefore MR imaging is useful for triage of pregnant patients with acute abdominal and pelvic pain.


MR Pregnancy Appendicitis Acute abdomen Abdominal pain 


  1. 1.
    Cappell MS, Friedel D (2003) Abdominal pain during pregnancy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 32:1–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baer JL, Reis RA, Arens RA (1932) Appendicitis in pregnancy. JAMA 52:1359–1364Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oto A, Srinivasan PN, Ernst RD, et al. (2006) Revisiting MRI for appendix location during pregnancy. AJR 186:883–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cobben LP, Groot I, Haans L, et al. (2004) MRI for clinically suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. AJR 183:671–675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birchard KR, Brown MA, Hyslop WB, et al. (2005) MRI of acute adominal and pelvic pain in pregnant patients. AJR 184:452–458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oto A, Ernst RD, Shah R, et al. (2005) Right-lower-quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis in pregnant women: evaluation with MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology 234:445–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pedrosa I, Levine D, Eyvazzadeh AD, et al. (2006) MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Radiology 238:891–899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rha SE, Byun JY, Jung SE et al. (2002) CT and MR imaging features of adnexal torsion. RadioGraphics 22:283–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Born C, Wirth S, Stabler A, et al. (2004) Diagnosis of adnexal torsion in the third trimester of pregnancy: a case report. Abdom Imaging 29:123–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spencer JA, Chahal R, Kelly A, et al. (2004) Evaluation of painful hydronephrosis in pregnancy: magnetic resonance urographic patterns in physiological dilatation versus calculous obstruction. J Urol 171:256–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharp HT (2002) The acute abdomen during pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 45:405–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stone K (2002) Acute abdominal emergencies associated with pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 45:553–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharp HT (1994) Gastrointestinal surgical conditions during pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 37:306–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mortele KJ, Ros PR (2001) Cystic focal liver lesions in the adult: differential CT and MR imaging features. Radiographics 21:895–910PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shellock FG, Kanal E (1999) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:477–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Novak Z, Thurmond AS, Ross PL, et al. (1993) Gadolinium-DTPA transplacental transfer and distribution in fetal tissue in rabbits. Invest Radiol 28:828–830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chapon C, Franconi F, Roux J, et al. (2005) Prenatal evaluation of kidney function in mice using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Anat Embryol (Berl) 209:263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. (2007) ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007. AJR 188:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lim HK, Bae SH, Seo GS (1992) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women: value of sonography. AJR 159:539–542PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barloon TJ, Brown BP, Abu-Yousef MM, et al. (1995) Sonography of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Abdom Imaging 20:149–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kok RD, de Vries MM, Heerschap A, et al. (2004) Absence of harmful effects of magnetic resonance exposure at 1.5T in utero during the third trimester of pregnancy: a follow-up study. Magn Reson Imaging 22(6):851–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baker PN, Johnson IR, Harvey PR, et al. (1994) A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero with echo-planar magnetic resonance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170:32–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Myers C, Duncan KR, Gowland PA, et al. (1998) Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI. Br J Radiol 71(845):549–551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clements H, Duncan KR, Fielding K, et al. (2000) Infants exposed to MRI in utero have a normal paediatric assessment at 9 months of age. Br J Radiol 73(866):190–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    US Food and Drug Administration (1988) Magnetic resonance diagnostic device: panel recommendation and report on petitions for MR classification. Fed Reg 53:7575–7579Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirshenbaum M, Mishra V, Kuo D, et al. (2003) Resolving appendicitis: role of CT. Abdom Imaging 28:276–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aytekin Oto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Randy D. Ernst
    • 2
  • Labib M. Ghulmiyyah
    • 3
  • Thomas K. Nishino
    • 4
  • Douglas Hughes
    • 4
  • Gregory Chaljub
    • 4
  • George Saade
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyM.D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Texas Medical Branch at GalvestonGalvestonUSA
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Texas Medical Branch at GalvestonGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations