La radiologia medica

, Volume 114, Issue 5, pp 811–826

Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome

  • G. Pompili
  • A. Munari
  • G. Franceschelli
  • N. Flor
  • R. Meroni
  • G. Frontino
  • L. Fedele
  • G. Cornalba
Uro-Genital Radiology/Radiologia Uro-Genitale



We evaluated the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in young women with primary amenorrhoea with suspected Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome (congenital absence of both vagina and uterus and presence of normal ovaries).

Materials and methods

Fifty-eight women (age range 14–30 years, mean 20.9) with primary amenorrhea were studied with MRI performed with a 1.0-T superconducting magnet (Philips NT Intera). All patients were examined in the supine position using a phased-array coil (four channels). Turbo spin-echo T2-weighted images were acquired in the sagittal, axial and coronal planes with the following parameters: TR 4,750–6,686, TE 100–120, FOV 350–375, 4- to 5-mm sections with a 0.4- to 0.5-mm intersection gap and NSA 6. T1-weighted images were acquired in the axial and coronal planes (TR 470, TE 15, FOV 350, 4-mm sections with a 0.6-mm intersection gap, NSA 3). Two experienced radiologists evaluated all the examinations in consensus to assess the presence, position and morphology of vagina, uterus, ovaries and kidneys and any pelvic abnormalities. MRI results were judged on the basis of laparoscopic findings in 41 patients.


MRKH syndrome was confirmed in 56 patients with 100% sensitivity and specificity. MRI identified bilateral Müllerian buds in 34/56 (61%) and unilateral in 10/56 (18%) patients. MRI sensitivity was 81.42%, and there was good agreement with laparoscopy (k=0.55) and full agreement in the identification of cavitation between MRI and intraoperative sonography. Both ovaries were visualised in 54 patients, with regular morphology in 46 (82.1%), polycystic in 10 (17.8%), pelvic in 47 (83.6%) and extrapelvic in eight (14.5%). We found associated abnormalities of the upper urinary tract in six patients (solitary kidney in four and ptosis in two).


MRI is a useful diagnostic tool in the preoperative evaluation of MRKH syndrome and is less expensive and invasive than laparoscopy. Strong cooperation between radiologists and surgeons is highly recommended.


Magnetic resonance (MR) MRKH, Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser Syndrome Utero-vaginal agenesis Müllerian anomalies Primary amenorrhea 

La risonanza magnetica nel management prechirurgico della sindrome di Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser



Valutare l’accuratezza della RM in donne con amenorrea primaria, con sospetta sindrome Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) (assenza congenita di vagina e utero con presenza di ovaie normali).

Materiali e metodi

Cinquantotto donne (14–30 anni, media 20,9), con amenorrea primaria, sono state studiate con RM mediante magnete superconduttivo 1,0 T. Tutte le pazienti sono state esaminate in posizione supina con bobina multicanale (4 canali). Immagini turbo spin-echo T2 pesate sono state acquisite sui piani sagittale, assiale e coronale con i seguenti parametri: TR 4750–6686, TE 100–120, FOV 350–375, sezioni di 4–5 mm con interspazio di 0,4–0,5 mm i, NSA 6. Immagini T1 pesate sono state acquisite sui piani assiale e coronale (TR 470, TE 15, FOV 350, sezioni di 4 mm di spessore con interspazio di 0,6 mm, NSA 3). Due radiologi esperti hanno valutato gli esami in consenso per stabilire la presenza, sede e morfologia di vagina, utero, ovaie, reni ed eventuali ulteriori malformazioni pelviche. I risultati della RM sono stati confrontati con quelli laparoscopici in 41 pazienti.


La sindrome MKRH è stata confermata in 56 pazienti con sensibilità e specificità del 100%. La RM ha identificato residui mülleriani in 34/56 (61%) e monolaterali in 10/56 (18%) pazienti. La sensibilità della RM è stata dell’81,42% e c’è stato un buon accordo con la laparoscopia (k Cohen 0,55) e un completo accordo nella identificazione delle cavitazione dei residui tra RM e ecografia intraoperatoria. Gli annessi bilaterali sono stati visualizzati in 54 pazienti, con regolare morfologia in 46 (82,1%), policistica in 10 (17,8%); sede pelvica in 47 (83,6%), extrapelvica in 8 (14,5%). Abbiamo riscontrato anomalie dell’apparato urinario superiore in 6 pazienti (monorene in 4, ptosico in 2).


La RM si è dimostrata utile metodica nella valutazione prechirurgica della sindrome MRKH ed è meno costosa ed invasive della laparoscopia. Una forte cooperazione tra radiologo e chirurgo è fortemente raccomandata.

Parole chiave

Risonanza magnetica (RM) MRKH, sindrome di Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser Agenesia utero-vaginale Anomalie mülleriane Amenorrea primaria 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Guerrier D, Mouchel T, Pasquier L, Pellerin I (2006) The Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (congenital absence of uterus and vagina) - phenotypic manifestation and genetic approaches. J Negat Results Biomed 5:1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Troiano R, McCarthy S (2004) Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233:19–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Creighton S (2005) Common congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Rev Gynecol Pract 5:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harland E, Damodaram M, Ali L, Yoong W (2007) Primary amenorrea caused by congenital absence of the uterus. Arch. Gynecol Obstet 275:199–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oppelt P, Renner S, Kellermann A et al (2006) Clinical aspects of Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuester-Hauser syndrome: recommendations for clinical diagnosis and staging. Human Reproduction 21:792–797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siegelman E, Outwater E, Banner M et al (1997) High-resolution MR Imaging of the Vagina. Radiographics 17:1183–1203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hricak H, Chang C, Thurnher S (1988) Vagina:evaluation with MR Imaging. Part 1. Normal anatomy and congenital anomalies. Genitourinary Radiology 169:169–174Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saleem S (2003) MR imaging diagnosis of uterovaginal anomalies: current state of the art. Radiographics 23:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lang I, Babyn P, Oliver G (1999) MR imaging of pediatric uterovaginal anomalies. Pediatr Radiol 29:163–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Russ P, Allen J, Weingardt J, Anderson M, Koyle M (1997) Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging in a 15 years-old girl. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 10:89–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strubbe E, Cremers C, Willemsen W, Rolland R (1994) The Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome without and with associated features: two separate identities? Clinical Dysmorphology 3:192–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strubbe E, Willemensen W, Lemmens J et al (1993) Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome: Distinction between two forms based on excretory urographic, sonographic, and laparoscopic findings. AJR Am J Roentg 160:331–334Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karim R, Hage J, Dekker J, Schoot C (1995) Evolution of the methods of neovaginoplasty for vaginal aplasia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 58:19–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones HW, Rock JA (1983) Reparative and constructive surgery of the female generative tract. Williams and Wilking, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fedele L, Bianchi S, Zanconato G, Raffaelli R (2000) Laparoscopic creation of a neovagina in patients with Rokitansky syndrome: analysis of 52 cases. Fertil Steril 74:384–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fedele L, Bianchi S, Berlanda N, Fontana E et al (2006) Neovaginal mucosa after Vecchietti’s laparoscopic operation for Rokitansky syndrome: structural and ultrastructural study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:56–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dargent D, Marchiole P, Giannesi A (2004) Laparoscopic Davydov orlaparoscopic transposition of the peritoneal colpopoesis described by Davydov for the treatment of congenital vaginal agenesis: the technique and its evolution. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 32:1023–1030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soong Y, Chang F, Lai Y et al (1996) Results of modified laparoscopically assisted neovaginoplasty in 18 patients with congenital absence of vagina. Human Reproduction 11:200–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Templeman C, Hertweck S, Levine R, Reich H (2000) Use of laparoscopically mobilized peritoneum in the creation of a neovagina. Fertil Steril 74:589–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reinhold C, Hricak H, Forstner R et al (1997) Primary amenorrhea: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology 203:383–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marques Hde S, dos Santos FL, Lopes-Costa PV et al (2007) Creation of a neovagina in patients with Rokitansky syndrome using peritoneum from the pouch of Douglas: an analysis of 48 cases. Fertil Steril 90:827–832Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Folch M, Pigem I, Konje J (2000) Müllerian agenesis: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Obstet Gynecol Surv 55:644–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D et al (1990): Magnetic resonance imaging in Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 76:593–596PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rajeswari J, Ogunnaike O, Nunns D (2007) Laparoscopic excision of fibroid uterine remnants in a patient with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Gynecol Surg 10:1007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Pompili
    • 1
    • 4
  • A. Munari
    • 1
  • G. Franceschelli
    • 1
  • N. Flor
    • 1
  • R. Meroni
    • 2
  • G. Frontino
    • 3
  • L. Fedele
    • 3
  • G. Cornalba
    • 1
  1. 1.Servizio di Radiologia Diagnostica e InterventisticaUniversità di Milano, Ospedale San PaoloMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Servizio di RadiologiaIstituto HumanitasBergamoItaly
  3. 3.Reparto di Ginecologia OstetriciaClinica MangiagalliMilanoItaly
  4. 4.MilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations