Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utility of vaginal and rectal contrast medium in MRI for the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To study the sensitivity of MRI performed utilising vaginal and rectal opacification with ultrasound gel in the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis.

Material and methods

This was a prospective monocentric study. All patients evaluated by the gynaecologist for pelvic pain, endometriosis or infertility were included. Axial and sagittal T2-weighted images were performed both with and without vaginal and rectal opacification with ultrasound gel. Three radiologists, all blinded, interpreted the images with a minimum of 15 days between the two readings. MRI performance with and without vaginal and rectal opacification was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity and both positive and negative predictive values.

Results

Seventy-eight patients were included. Among these, 31 patients had deep pelvic endometriosis of which 24 were confirmed by laparoscopy. Seventy-six locations of deep pelvic endometriosis were discovered on MRI. For the three reviewers there was a significant improvement in sensitivity between pre- and post-contrast MRI (p < 0.0002).

Conclusion

Opacification of the vagina and rectum significantly improved the sensitivity of MRI for the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis by expanding the vagina and rectum, thus allowing better delineation of the pelvic organs. This was especially apparent for lesions localised to the vagina and rectovaginal septum.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Koninckx PR, Meuleman C, Demeyere S, Lesaffre E, Cornillie FJ (1991) Suggestive evidence that pelvic endometriosis is a progressive disease, whereas deeply infiltrating endometriosis is associated with pelvic pain. Fertil Steril 55:759–765

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chapron C, Fauconnier A, Vieira M et al (2003) Anatomical distribution of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: surgical implications and proposition for a classification. Hum Reprod 18:157–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kataoka ML, Togashi K, Yamaoka T et al (2005) Posterior cul-de-sac obliteration associated with endometriosis: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 234:815–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ford J, English J, Miles WA, Giannopoulos T (2004) Pain, quality of life and complications following the radical resection of rectovaginal endometriosis. BJOG 111:353–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hollett-Caines J, Vilos GA, Penava DA (2003) Laparoscopic mobilization of the rectosigmoid and excision of the obliterated cul-de-sac. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10:190–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abbott JA, Hawe J, Clayton RD, Garry R (2003) The effects and effectiveness of laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: a prospective study with 2–5 year follow-up. Hum Reprod 18:1922–1927

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Redwine DB, Wright JT (2001) Laparoscopic treatment of complete obliteration of the cul-de-sac associated with endometriosis: long-term follow-up of en bloc resection. Fertil Steril 76:358–365

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chopin N, Vieira M, Borghese B et al (2005) Operative management of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: results on pelvic pain symptoms according to a surgical classification. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12:106–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zanardi R, Del Frate C, Zuiani C, Bazzocchi M (2003) Staging of pelvic endometriosis based on MRI findings versus laparoscopic classification according to the American Fertility Society. Abdom Imaging 28:733–742

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Roy C, Balzan C, Thoma V, Sauer B, Wattiez A, Leroy J (2009) Efficiency of MR imaging to orientate surgical treatment of posterior deep pelvic endometriosis. Abdom Imaging 34:251–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kinkel K, Frei KA, Balleyguier C, Chapron C (2006) Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. Eur Radiol 16:285–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Del Frate C, Girometti R, Pittino M, Del Frate G, Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C (2006) Deep retroperitoneal pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging appearance with laparoscopic correlation. Radiographics 26:1705–1718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bazot M, Darai E, Hourani R et al (2004) Deep pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease. Radiology 232:379–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jarlot C, Anglade E, Paillocher N, Moreau D, Catala L, Aubé C (2008) MR imaging features of deep pelvic endometriosis: correlation with laparoscopy. J Radiol 89:1745–1754

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ha HK, Lim YT, Kim HS, Suh TS, Song HH, Kim SJ (1994) Diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis: fat-suppressed T1-weighted vs conventional MR images. Am J Roentgenol 163:127–131

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mondot L, Novellas S, Senni M et al (2006) Pelvic prolapse: static and dynamic MRI. Abdom Imaging 32:775–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Akata D, Kerimoglu U, Hazirolan T et al (2005) Efficacy of transvaginal contrast-enhanced MRI in the early staging of cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol 15:1727–1733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Hoe L, Vanbeckevoort D, Oyen R, Itzlinger U, Vergote I (1999) Cervical carcinoma: optimized local staging with intravaginal contrast-enhanced MR imaging—preliminary results. Radiology 213:608–611

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Urban M, Rosen HR, Hölbling N et al (2000) MR imaging for the preoperative planning of sphincter-saving surgery for tumors of the lower third of the rectum: use of intravenous and endorectal contrast materials. Radiology 214:503–508

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Leeuwen E (1990) Between scientific application and therapy: the ethical consideration. Dev Biol Stand 71:161–170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brown MA, Mattrey RF, Stamato S (2005) MRI of the female pelvis using vaginal gel. AJR 185:1221–1227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Takeuchi H, Kuwatsuru R, Kitade M et al (2005) A novel technique using magnetic resonance imaging jelly for evaluation of rectovaginal endometriosis. Fertil Steril 83:442–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kikuchi I, Takeuchi H, Kuwatsuru R et al (2009) Diagnosis of complete cul-de-sac obliteration (CCDSO) by the MRI jelly method. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:365–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bazot M, Nassar J, Daraï E et al (2005) Value of sonography and MR imaging for the evaluation of deep pelvic endometriosis. J Radiol 86:461–467

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Abrao MS, Gonçalves MO, Dias JA Jr, Podgaec S, Chamie LP, Blasbalg R (2007) Comparison between clinical examination, transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod 22:3092–3097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chapron C, Dubuisson JB, Pansini V et al (2002) Routine clinical examination is not sufficient for diagnosing and locating deeply infiltrating endometriosis. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9:115–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bazot M, Thomassin I, Hourani R, Cortez A, Darai E (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for deep pelvic endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24:180–185

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service d’Imagerie diagnostique et interventionnelle, Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nice, Hôpital Archet 2, 151 route de Saint Antoine de Ginestière, B.P. 3079, 06202, Nice Cedex 3, France

    M. Chassang, S. Novellas, C. Bloch-Marcotte & P. Chevallier

  2. Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nice, Hôpital Archet 2, 151 route de Saint Antoine de Ginestière, B.P. 3079, 06202, Nice Cedex 3, France

    J. Delotte & A. Bongain

  3. Service de Gynécologie, Hopital de Cannes, 15 avenue des Broussailles, B.P. 264, 06401, Cannes Cedex, France

    O. Toullalan

Authors
  1. M. Chassang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Novellas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Bloch-Marcotte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Delotte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. O. Toullalan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Bongain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. Chevallier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Novellas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chassang, M., Novellas, S., Bloch-Marcotte, C. et al. Utility of vaginal and rectal contrast medium in MRI for the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol 20, 1003–1010 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1627-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1627-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation