Advertisement

Multimodality imaging of acute locoregional and systemic complications in the setting of assisted reproduction

  • Benjamin Hirshberg
  • Matthew RheinboldtEmail author
Review Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Over the past 40 years since the first in vitro fertilization was performed, both the role of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in establishing viable pregnancy as well as the available treatment options have expanded enormously. Annually in the USA, nearly 2% of pregnancies now employ some form of ART assistance, with in vitro fertilization (IVF) being the most commonly utilized methodology. Both maternal and fetal risks are elevated in ART pregnancies, the latter including adverse outcome due to both increased gestational number as well as advanced maternal age. Maternal risks may be divided into locoregional and systemic complications. Adverse pelvic complications include those relating to gamete harvesting and transfer, ovarian hyperstimulation, the sequela of ectopic and heterotopic pregnancies, as well as ovarian torsion, all of which are elevated in the ART cohort. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is the most commonly encountered complication, with both systemic and pelvic features relating to increased vascular permeability, hemoconcentration, and ascites. While life-threatening cases are relatively rare, moderate and severe manifestations may occur in up to 10% of ART cycles and, as such, are a not infrequent cause for ER visitation. Familiarity with the clinical and imaging manifestations of ART complications as well as their prognostic implications will facilitate a timely diagnosis and assist the interpreting radiologist in best expediting appropriate clinical care. In this article, we will briefly discuss the current methodology of ART then present an imaging-based multimodality review of the potentially encountered adverse maternal sequela, highlighting key diagnostic features and differential considerations as well as potential prognostic implications.

Keywords

Fertility in-vitro Hyperstimulation Torsion Imaging 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson G, de Mouuzon J et al (2009) The international committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary on ART terminology. Hum Reprod 24:2683–2687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sunderam S, Kissin D, Crawford S et al (2015) Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States. MMWR Fertil Steril Summ 2018 67:1–28Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balen A, Morley L, Misso M et al (2016) The management of anovulatory infertility in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: an analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance. Hum Reprod 22(6):687–708Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kawwass J, Kissin D, Kulkarni A, Creanga AA, Session DR, Callaghan WM, Jamieson DJ, National ART Surveillance System (NASS) Group (2015) Safety of assisted reproductive technology in the United States, 2000–2011. JAMA 313:88–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kawwass J, Badell M (2018) Maternal and fetal risk associated with assisted reproductive technology. Obstet Gynecol 132(3):763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li H, Lee V, Lau E et al (2014) Cumulative live birth rate in women with polycystic ovary syndrome or isolated polycystic ovaries undergoing in-vitro fertilization treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet 31:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nastri C, Ferriani R, Rocha I et al (2010) Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: pathophysiology and prevention. J Assist Reprod Genet 27:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barlow D (1999) Short and long-term risks for women having IVF—what is the evidence? Hum Fertil 2:102–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nastri C, Teixeira D, Moroni R et al (2015) Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: pathophysiology, staging, prediction and prevention. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whelan J, Vlahos N (2000) the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril 73:883–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cerrillo M, Pacheco A, Rodriguez S et al (2011) Effect of GnRH agonist and hCG treatment on VEGF, angiopoietin-2, and VE-cadherin: trying to explain the link to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril 95:2517–2519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jahromi B, Parsanezhad M, Shomali Z et al (2018) Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a narrative review of its pathophysiology, risk factors, prevention, classification, and management. Iran J Med Sci 43(3):248–260Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kashyap S, Parker K, Cedars M, Rosenwaks Z (2010) Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention strategies: reducing the human chorionic gonadotropin trigger dose. Semin Reprod Med 28:475–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kolibianakis EM, Schultze-Mosgau A, Schroer A, van Steirteghem A, Devroey P, Diedrich K, Griesinger G (2005) A lower ongoing pregnancy rate can be expected when GnRH agonist is used for triggering final oocyte maturation instead of HCG in patients undergoing IVF with GnRH antagonists. Hum Reprod 20:2887–2892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buyalos R, Lee C (1996) Polycystic ovary syndrome: pathophysiology and outcome with in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 65:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim S, Yoon J, Kim H et al (2017) Spontaneous ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in a young female subject with a lingual thyroid and primary hypothyroidism. Korean J Int Med 32:559–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halupczok J, Bidzinska-Speichert B, Lenarcik-Kabza A et al (2014) Gonadotroph adenoma causing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in a premenopausal woman. Gynecol Endocrinol 30:774–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suzuki H, Matsubara S, Uchida S, Ohkuchi A (2014) Ovary hyperstimulation syndrome accompanying molar pregnancy: case report and review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290:803–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zalel Y, Katz Z, Caspi B, Ben-Hur H, Dgani R, Insler V (1992) Spontaneous ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome concomitant with spontaneous pregnancy in a woman with polycystic ovary disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 167:122–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fonseca D, Torrao H, Costa N (2018) Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome induced by hormone therapy for breast cancer treatment. AJOG 218(2):260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Golan A, Ron-el R, Herman A, Soffer Y, Weinraub Z, Caspi E (1989) Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: an update review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 44:430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schenker J (1993) Prevention and treatment of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Reprod 8:653–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Papanikolaou E, Tournaye H, Verpoest W et al (2005) Early and late ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: early pregnancy outcome and profile. Hum Reprod 20:636–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bellapu S, Guttman J (2017) Use of point-of-care ultrasound for the diagnosis of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. J Emerg Med 4:101–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abramov Y, Elchalal U, Schenker J (1999) Severe OHSS: an ‘epidemic’ of severe OHSS: a price we have to pay? Human Reprod 14(9):2181–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fabregues F, Balasch J, Gines P, Manau D, Jimenez W, Arroyo V, Creus M, Vanrell JA (1999) Ascites and liver test abnormalities during severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 94:994–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Makino H, Furui T, Shiga T, Takenaka M, Terazawa K, Morishige KI (2017) Management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome with abdominal compartment syndrome, based on intravesical pressure measurement. Reprod Med Biol 16:72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee T, Liu C, Huang C, Wu YL, Shih YT, Ho HN, Yang YS, Lee MS (2008) Serum anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol levels as predictors of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in assisted reproduction technology cycles. Hum Reprod 23:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jayaprakasan K, Chan Y, Islam R, Haoula Z, Hopkisson J, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning N (2012) Prediction of in vitro fertilization outcome at different antral follicle count thresholds in a prospective cohort of 1,012 women. Fertil Steril 98:657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Palomba S, Falbo A, LaSala G (2013) Effects of metformin in women with polycystic ovary syndrome treated with gonadotrophins for in vitro fertilization and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJOG 120(3):267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Varnagy A, Bodis J, Manfai Z et al (2010) Low-dose aspirin therapy to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril 93:2281–2284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alvarez C, Marti-Bonmati L, Novella-Maestre E et al (2007) Dopamine agonist cabergoline reduces hemoconcentration and ascites in hyperstimulated women undergoing assisted reproduction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:2931–2937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pirwany I, Tulandi T (2003) Laparoscopic treatment of polycystic ovaries: is it time to relinquish the procedure? Fertil Steril 80:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Delvigne A, Rozenberg S (2003) Review of clinical course and treatment of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Hum Reprod Update 9:77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shmorgun D, Claman P (2011) Joint SOGC–CFAS Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. The diagnosis and management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33:1156–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chang H, Bhatt S, Dogra V (2008) Pearls and pitfalls in the diagnosis of ovarian torsion. In: Radiographics; 28: 13–55-68, vol 28, pp 1355–1368Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Baron K, Babagbemi K, Arleo E et al (2013) Emergent complications of assisted reproduction: expecting the unexpected. Radiographics 33(1):229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim I, Lee B (1997) Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: US and CT appearances. Clin Imaging 21(4):284–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maxwell K, Cholst I, Rosenwaks Z (2008) The incidence of both serious and minor complications in young women undergoing oocyte donation. Fertil Steril 90(6):2165–2171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bennett G, Slywotzky C, Giovanniello G (2002) Gynecologic causes of acute pelvic pain: spectrum of CT findings. Radiographics 22(4):785–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jung S, Byun J, Lee J et al (2001) MR imaging of maternal diseases in pregnancy. AJR 177(6):1293–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jung B, Kim H (2001) Severe spontaneous ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome with MR findings. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25(2):215–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Foulk R, Martin M, Jerkins G et al (1997) Hyperreactio luteinalis differentiated from severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in a spontaneously conceived pregnancy. AJOG 176:1300–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ozdemir S, Balci O, Gorkemli H et al (2011) Bilateral adnexal torsion due to postmenopausal hydatidiform mole. J Obstet Gynecol Res 37(4):359–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mashiach S, Bider D, Moran O, Goldenberg M, Ben-Rafael Z (1990) Adnexal torsion of hyperstimulated ovaries in pregnancies after gonadotropin therapy. Fertil Steril 53(1):76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cavoretto P, Giorgione V, Sigismondi C, Mangili G, Serafini A, Dallagiovanna C, Candiani M (2014) Hyperreactio luteinalis: timely diagnosis minimizes the risk of oophorectomy and alerts clinicians to the associated risk of placental insufficiency. J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 176:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sauer M (2001) Defining the incidence of serious complications experienced by oocyte donors: a review of 1000 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:277–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bodri D (2008) Complications related to ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval in 4052 oocyte donor cycles. Reprod BioMed Online 17:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rackow B, Patrizio P (2007) Successful pregnancy complicated by early and late adnexal torsion after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 87:697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cornfeld D, Scoutt L (2007) Torsion of a hyperstimulated ovary during pregnancy: a potentially difficult diagnosis. Emerg Radiol 14(5):331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Houry D, Abbott J (2001) Ovarian torsion: a fifteen-year review. Ann Emerg Med 38:156–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chiou S, Lev-Toaff A, Masuda E et al (2007) Adnexal torsion: new clinical and imaging observations by sonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. J Ultrasound Med 26:1289–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lourenco A, Swenson D, Tubbs R et al (2014) Ovarian and tubal torsion: imaging findings on US, CT, and MRI. Emerg Rad 21(2):179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pena JE, Ufberg D, Cooney N, Denis AL (2000) Usefulness of Doppler sonography in the diagnosis of ovarian torsion. Fertil Steril 73(5):1047–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Albayram F, Hamper UM (2001) Ovarian and adnexal torsion: spectrum of sonographic findings with pathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med 20(10):1083–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fleischer AC, Stein SM, Cullinan JA, Warner MA (1995) Color Doppler sonography of adnexal torsion. J Ultrasound Med 14(7):523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vijayaraghavan SB (2004) Sonographic whirlpool sign in ovarian torsion. J Ultrasound Med 23(12):1643–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lee EJ, Kwon HC, Joo HJ, Suh JH, Fleischer AC (1998) Diagnosis of ovarian torsion with color Doppler sonography: depiction of twisted vascular pedicle. J Ultrasound Med 17(2):83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Moribata Y, Kido A, Mikami Y et al (2015) MR imaging findings of ovarian torsion correlate with pathologic hemorrhagic infarction. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 41(9):1433–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kato H, Kanematsu M, Uchiyama M et al (2014) Diffusion-weighted imaging of ovarian torsion: usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for the detection of hemorrhagic infarction. Magn Reson Med Sci 13(1):39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Duigenan S, Oliva E, Lee SI (2012) Ovarian torsion: diagnostic features on CT and MRI with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(2):W122–W131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hiller N, Appelbaum L, Simanovsky N, Lev-Sagi A, Aharoni D, Sella T (2007) CT features of adnexal torsion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(1):124–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ssi-Yan-Kai G, Rivain A, Trichot C et al (2018) What every radiologist should know about adnexal torsion. Emerg Radiol 25:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Petkovska I, Duke E, Martin D et al (2016) MRI of ovarian torsion: correlation of imaging features with the presence of perifollicular hemorrhage and ovarian viability. EJR 85(11):206471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kilickesmez O, Tasdelen N, Yetimoglu B, Kayhan A, Cihangiroglu M, Gurmen N (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging of adnexal torsion. Emerg Radiol 16(5):399–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chang H, Suh C (2010) Ectopic pregnancy after assisted reproductive technology: what are the risk factors? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 22:202–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Farquhar C (2005) Ectopic pregnancy. Lancet 366:583–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Clayton H, Schieve L, Peterson H et al (2006) Ectopic pregnancy risk with assisted reproductive technology procedures. Obstet Gynecol 107:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Paltieli Y, Eibschitz I, Ziskind G, Ohel G, Silbermann M, Weichselbaum A (2000) High progesterone levels and ciliary dysfunction—a possible cause of ectopic pregnancy. J Assist Reprod Genet 17:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Revel A, Ophir I, Koler M, Achache H, Prus D (2008) Changing etiology of tubal pregnancy following IVF. Hum Reprod 23:1372–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Strandell A, Thorburn J, Hamberger L (1999) Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 71:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Perkins K, Boulet S, Kissin D, Jamieson DJ, National ART Surveillance (NASS) Group (2015) Risk of ectopic pregnancy associated with assisted reproductive technology in the United States; 2001-2011. Obstet Gynecol 125(1):70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dor J, Seidman D, Levran D et al (1991) The incidence of combined intrauterine and extrauterine pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 55:833–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Fernandez H, Gervaise A (2004) Ectopic pregnancies after infertility treatment: modern diagnosis and therapeutic strategy. Hum Reprod Update 10(6):503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lin E, Bhatt S, Dogra V (2008) Diagnostic clues to ectopic pregnancy. RadioGraphics 28(6):1661–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Levine D (2007) Ectopic pregnancy. Radiology 245(2):385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Brown D, Doubilet P (1994) Transvaginal sonography for diagnosing ectopic pregnancy: positivity criteria and performance characteristics. J Ultrasound Med 13(4):259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Stein M, Ricci Z, Novak L et al (2004) Sonographic comparison of the tubal ring of ectopic pregnancy with the corpus luteum. J Ultrasound Med 23(1):57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rojansky N, Schenker J (1996) Heterotopic pregnancy and assisted reproduction: an update. J Assist Reprod Genet 13(7):594–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Dibble E, Lourenco A (2016) Imaging unusual pregnancy implantations: rare ectopic pregnancies and more. AJR 207(6):1380–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Shan N, Dong D, Deng W, Fu Y (2014) Unusual ectopic pregnancies: a retrospective analysis of 65 cases. J Obstet Gyn Res 40:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Jurkovic D, Hacket E, Cambell S (1996) Diagnosis and treatment of early cervical pregnancy: a review and a report of two cases treated conservatively. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 8:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Doubilet P, Benson C, Frates M et al (2004) Sonographically guided minimally invasive treatment of unusual ectopic pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 23:359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ackerman T, Levi C, Dashefsky M et al (1993) Interstitial line: sonographic finding in interstitial (cornual) ectopic pregnancy. Radiology 189:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Filhastre M, Dechaud H, Lesnik A, Taourel P (2005) Interstitial pregnancy: role of MRI. Eur Radiol 15:93–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Chan Y, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J et al (2011) The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 17:761–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mavrelos D, Sawyer E, Helmy S, Holland TK, Ben-Nagi J, Jurkovic D (2007) Ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy in the non-communicating horn of a unicornuate uterus (cornual pregnancy). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:765–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Grandone E, Colaizzo D, Vergura P, Cappucci F, Vecchione G, Lo Bue A, Cittadini E, Margaglione M (2004) Age and homocysteine plasma levels are risk factors for thrombotic complications after ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 19:1796–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Seow K, Huang L, Lin Y et al (2004) Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Fylstra D (2002) Ectopic pregnancy within a cesarean scar: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 57:537–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Chan W, Dixon M (2008) The ‘ART’ of thromboembolism: a review of assisted reproductive technology and thromboembolic complications. Thromb Res 121:713–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Chan W, Ginserg J (2006) A review of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy: unmasking the ‘ART’ behind the clot. J Thromb Haemost 4:1673–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Grandone E, Villani M (2015) Assisted reproductive technologies and thrombosis. Thrombosis Res 135:S34–S45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Serour G, Aboulghar M, Mansour R et al (1998) Complications of medically assisted conception in 3500 cycles. Fertil Steril 70:638–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Bauersachs R, Manolopoulos K, Hoppe I et al (2007) More on: the “ART” behind the clot: solving the mystery. J Thrmb Haemost 5(2):438–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Rova K, Passmark H, Lindqvist P (2012) Venous thromboembolism in relation to in vitro fertilization: an approach to determining the incidence and increase in risk in successive cycles. Fertil Steril 97:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kodama H, Fukuda J, Karube H, Matsui T, Shimizu Y, Tanaka T (1996) Status of the coagulation and fibrinolytic systems in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril 66:417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHenry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations