Advertisement

Female Pelvis

  • Mukesh G. Harisinghani
  • Arumugam Rajesh
Chapter

Abstract

The corpus luteum degenerates over 14 days and becomes a scarred corpus albicans. The corpus luteum can seal and contain fluid or blood and form a corpus luteum cyst. The corpus luteum cysts may grow to 1–10 cm in size but are usually less than 4 cm in size.

Keywords

Public Health Corpus Luteum Incidental Finding Cyst Wall Thick Wall 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Suggested Readings by Case

Case 6.1

  1. Garel L, Dubois J, Grignon A, Filiatrault D, Van Vliet G. US of the pediatric female pelvis: a clinical perspective. Radiographics. 2001;21(6):1393–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hamm B, Forstner R. MRI and CT of the female pelvis. Springer; Berlin Heidelberg; 2007. p. 388.Google Scholar
  3. Lee TT, Rausch ME. Polycystic ovarian syndrome: role of imaging in diagnosis. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1643–57.Google Scholar
  4. Merz E. Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Thieme; Stuttgart, Germany; 2007. p. 326.Google Scholar
  5. Merz E, Miric-Tesanic D, Bahlmann F, Weber G, Wellek S. Sonographic size of uterus and ovaries in pre- and postmenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996;7(1):38–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.2

  1. Dill-Macky MJ, et al. Ovarian sonography. In: Ultrasonography in obstetrics and gynecology. 4th ed. W.B. Saunders Company; 2000. p. 863–4.Google Scholar
  2. Jain KA. Sonographic spectrum of hemorrhagic ovarian cysts. J Ultrasound Med. 2002;21:879–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Jeong YY, Outwater EK, Kang HG. Imaging evaluation of ovarian masses. Radiographics. 2000;20:1445–70.Google Scholar
  4. Reed Dunnick N, et al. Textbook of uroradiology. 5th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Philadelphia, USA; 2013. p. 363–6.Google Scholar
  5. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al. MR features of physiologic and benign conditions of the ovary. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(12):2700–11.Google Scholar

Case 6.3

  1. Dill-Macky MJ, et al. Ovarian sonography. In: Ultrasonography in obstetrics and gynecology. 4th ed. W.B. Saunders Company; 2000. p. 863–4.Google Scholar
  2. Jeong YY, Outwater EK, Kang HG. Imaging evaluation of ovarian masses. Radiographics. 2000;20:1445–70.Google Scholar
  3. Reed Dunnick N, et al. Textbook of uroradiology. 5th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013. p. 363–6.Google Scholar
  4. Swire MN, Castro-Aragon I, Levine D. Various sonographic appearance of the hemorrhagic corpus luteum cyst. Ultrasound Q. 2004;20(2):45–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al. MR features of physiologic and benign conditions of the ovary. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(12):2700–11.Google Scholar

Case 6.4

  1. Chiang G, Levine D. Imaging of adnexal masses in pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23(6):805–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kier R, McCarthy SM, Scoutt LM, et al. Pelvic masses in pregnancy: MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;176:709–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Rahatzad MT, Adamson D. A pictorial essay of pelvic and abdominal masses seen during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound. 1986;14:255–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.5

  1. Lee TT, Rausch ME. Polycystic ovarian syndrome: role of imaging in diagnosis. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1643–57.Google Scholar
  2. Vargas HA, Barrett T, Sala E. MRI of ovarian masses. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(2):265–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.6

  1. Darwish A, Amin AF, Mohammad SA. Laparoscopic management of paratubal and paraovarian cysts. JSLS. 2003;7(2):101–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Jeong YY, Outwater EK, Kang HG. Imaging evaluation of ovarian masses. Radiographics. 2000;20:1445–70.Google Scholar
  3. Kim JS, Woo SK, Suh SJ, et al. Sonographic diagnosis of paraovarian cysts: value of detecting a separate ipsilateral ovary. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:1441–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.7

  1. Corwin MT, Gerscovich EO, Lamba R, et al. Differentiation of ovarian endometriomas from hemorrhagic cysts at MR imaging: utility of the T2 dark spot sign. Radiology. 2014;271(1):126–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Glastonbury CM. The shading sign. Radiology. 2002;224(1):199–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Siegelman ES, Oliver ER. MR imaging of endometriosis: ten imaging pearls. Radiographics. 2012;32:1675–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Umaria N, Olliff JF. Imaging features of pelvic endometriosis. Br J Radiol. 2001;74(882):556–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.8

  1. Chiou SY, Lev-Toaff AS, Masuda E, et al. Adnexal torsion: new clinical and imaging observations by sonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(10):1289–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Duigenan S, Oliva E, Lee SI. Ovarian torsion: diagnostic features on CT and MRI with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(2):W122–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Huchon C, Fauconnier A. Adnexal torsion: a literature review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150(1):8–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lourenco AP, Swenson D, Tubbs RJ, et al. Ovarian and tubal torsion: imaging findings on US, CT, and MRI. Emerg Radiol. 2014;21(2):179–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Wilkinson C, Sanderson A. Adnexal torsion – a multimodality imaging review. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(5):476–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.9

  1. Jung S, Lee J, Rha S. CT and MR imaging of ovarian tumors with emphasis on differential diagnosis. Radiographics. 2002;22:1305–25.Google Scholar
  2. Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Hunt JL. Ovarian teratomas: tumor types and imaging characteristics. Radiographics. 2001;5067:475–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Pokharel SS, Macura KJ, Ihab R, et al. Current MR imaging lipid detection techniques for diagnosis of lesions in the abdomen and pelvis. Radiographics. 2013;33:681–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Saba L, Guerriero S, Sulcis R, et al. Mature and immature ovarian teratomas: CT, US and MR imaging characteristics. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72:454–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.10

  1. Oh SN, Rha SE, Byun JY, et al. MRI features of ovarian fibromas: emphasis on their relationship to the ovary. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(5):529–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Paladini D, Testa A, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (5): clinical and ultrasound characteristics in fibroma and fibrothecoma of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(2):188–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Shinagare AB, Meylaerts LJ, Laury AR, et al. MRI features of ovarian fibroma and fibrothecoma with histopathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(3):W296–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Troiano RN, Lazzarini KM, Scoutt LM, et al. Fibroma and fibrothecoma of the ovary: MR imaging findings. Radiology. 1997;204(3):795–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.11

  1. Hart WR. Mucinous tumors of the ovary: a review. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2005;24(1):4–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Imaoka I, Wada A, Kaji Y, et al. Developing an MR imaging strategy for diagnosis of ovarian masses. Radiographics. 2006;26(5):1431–48.Google Scholar
  3. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al. MR features of physiologic and benign conditions of the ovary. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(12):2700–11.Google Scholar

Case 6.12

  1. Imaoka I, Wada A, Kaji Y, et al. Developing an MR imaging strategy for diagnosis of ovarian masses. Radiographics. 2006;26(5):1431–48.Google Scholar
  2. Jeong YY, Outwater EK, Kang HK. Imaging evaluation of ovarian masses. Radiographics. 2000;20(5):1445–70.Google Scholar
  3. Jung SE, Lee JM, Rha SE, et al. CT and MR imaging of ovarian tumors with emphasis on differential diagnosis. Radiographics. 2002;22(6):1305–25.Google Scholar
  4. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al. MR features of physiologic and benign conditions of the ovary. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(12):2700–11.Google Scholar

Case 6.13

  1. Matsuoka Y, Ohtomo K, Araki T, et al. MR imaging of clear cell carcinoma of the ovary. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(6):946–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Montag AG, Jenison EL, Griffiths CT, et al. Ovarian clear cell carcinoma. A clinicopathologic analysis of 44 cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1989;8(2):85–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Wagner BJ, Buck JL, Seidman JD, et al. Ovarian epithelial neoplasms: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1994;14(6):1351–74.Google Scholar

Case 6.14

  1. Azuma A, Koyama T, Mikami Y, et al. A case of Sertoli-Leydig cell tumour of the ovary with a multilocular cystic appearance on CT and MR imaging. Pediatr Radiol. 2008;38(8):898–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cai SQ, Zhao SH, Qiang JW, et al. Ovarian Sertoli—Leydig cell tumors: MRI findings and pathological correlation. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6(1):73.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Jung SE, Rha SE, Lee JM, et al. CT and MRI findings of sex cord-stromal tumor of the ovary. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(1):207–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Young RH, Scully RE. Ovarian Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors. A clinicopathological analysis of 207 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1985;9(8):543–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.15

  1. Kim SH, Kim SH. Granulosa cell tumor of the ovary: common findings and unusual appearances on CT and MR. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2002;26(5):756–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ko SF, Wan YL, Ng SH, et al. Adult ovarian granulose cell tumors: spectrum of sonographic and CT findings with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(5):1227–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Stein M, Koenigsberg M, Han M. US case of the day. Adult-type granulosa cell tumor. Radiographics. 1996;16(1):200–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Holland TK, et al. Imaging of gynecological disease (3): clinical ultrasound characteristics of granulose cell tumors of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(4):450–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.16

  1. Ha H, Baek S, Kim S, Kim H, Kwon H. Krukenberg’s tumor of the ovary: MR imaging features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164(6):1435–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Imaoka I, Wada A, Kaji Y, et al. Developing an MR imaging strategy for diagnosis of ovarian masses. Radiographics. 2006;26:1431–49.Google Scholar
  3. Kim S, Kim W, Park K, et al. CT and MR findings of Krukenberg tumors: comparison with primary ovarian tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1996;20:393–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Koyama T, Mikami Y, Saga T, et al. Secondary ovarian tumors: spectrum of CT and MR features with pathologic correlation. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32:784–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Testa A, Ferrandina G, Timmerman D, et al. Imaging in gynecological disease: ultrasound features of metastases in the ovaries differ depending on the origin of the primary tumor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29(5):505–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.17

  1. Pompili G, Munari A, Franceschelli G. Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Radiol Med. 2009;114(5):811–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Strübbe EH, Willemsen WN, Lemmens JA, et al. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: distinction between two forms based on excretory urographic, sonographic, and laparoscopic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(2):331–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.18

  1. Muller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR, et al. Mullerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Olpin JD, Heilbrun M. Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;52(1):40–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Shulman LP. Müllerian anomalies. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;51(2):214–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.19

  1. Mueller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1294–302.Google Scholar
  2. Troiano RN, Mccarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233(1):19–34.Google Scholar

Case 6.20

  1. Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A. Imaging of müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):E233–50.Google Scholar
  2. Brody JM, Koelliker SL, Frishman GN. Unicornuate uterus: imaging appearance, associated anomalies, and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171(5):1341–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Mueller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1294–302.Google Scholar
  4. Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Wagner BJ. Congenital uterine malformations. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 1995;24(5):178–97.Google Scholar

Case 6.21

  1. Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A. Imaging of müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):E233–50.Google Scholar
  2. Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of müllerian ductanomalies: a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(3):413–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Mueller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1294–302.Google Scholar
  4. Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Wagner BJ. Congenital uterine malformations. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 1995;24(5):178–97.Google Scholar

Case 6.22

  1. Charles L. Renell; T-shaped uterus in Diethylstibestrol (DES) exposure. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1979;132:979–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Troiano RN, Mccarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233(1):19–34.Google Scholar
  3. Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, et al. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):131–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.23

  1. Aydogdu O, Pulat H. Asymptomatic far-migration of an intrauterine device into the abdominal cavity: a rare entity. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012;6:134–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boortz HE, Margolis D, Ragavendra N. Migration of intrauterine devices: radiologic findings and implications for patient care. Radiographics. 2012;32(2):335–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Levsky JM, Herskovits M. Incidental detection of a transmigrated intrauterine device. Emerg Radiol. 2005;11(5):312–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.24

  1. Jha RC, Zanello PA, Ascher SM, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of adenomyosis and fibroids of the uterus. Abdom Imaging. 2014;39(3):562–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Novellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J, et al. MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:1206–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Shwayder J, Sakhel K. Imaging for uterine myomas and adenomyosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:362–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K. Adenomyosis: usual and unusual imaging manifestations, pitfalls, and problem-solving MR imaging techniques. Radiographics. 2011;31:99–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.25

  1. Armstrong AJ, Hurd WW, Elguero S, et al. Diagnosis and management of endometrial hyperplasia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(5):562–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Jorizzo JR, Chen MY, Martin D, et al. Spectrum of endometrial hyperplasia and its mimics on saline hysterosonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(2):385–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Nalaboff KM, Pellerito JS, Ben-levi E. Imaging the endometrium: disease and normal variants. Radiographics. 2001;21(6):1409–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.26

  1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 336. Tamoxifen and uterine cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1475–8.Google Scholar
  2. Ascher SM, Imaoka I, Lage JM. Tamoxifen-induced uterine abnormalities: the role of imaging. Radiology. 2000;214(1):29–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.27

  1. Ciavattini A, Di Giuseppe J, Stortoni P, et al. Uterine fibroids: pathogenesis and interactions with endometrium and endomyometrial junction. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:173–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fonseca-Moutinho JA, Barbosa LS, Torres DG, et al. Abnormal uterine bleeding as a presenting symptom is related to multiple uterine leiomyoma: an ultrasound-based study. Int J Womens Health. 2013;5:689–94.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Wilde S, Scott-Barrett S. Radiological appearances of uterine fibroids. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;19(3):222–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case 6.28

  1. Kraljević Z, Visković K, Ledinsky M, et al. Primary uterine cervical cancer: correlation of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and clinical staging (FIGO) with histopathology findings. Coll Antropol. 2013;37(2):561–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radiographics. 2001;21(5):1155–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, et al. The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology. 2013;266(3):717–40.Google Scholar
  4. Tirumani SH, Shanbhogue AKP, Prasad SR. Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of endometrial and cervical carcinomas. Radiol Clin North Am. 2013 ;51(6):1087–110.Google Scholar

Case 6.29

  1. Barwick TD, Rockall AG, Barton DP, et al. Imaging of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Clin Radiol. 2006;61(7):545–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ortoft G, Dueholm M, Mathiesen O, et al. Preoperative staging of endometrial cancer using TVS, MRI, and hysteroscopy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(5):536–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, et al. The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology. 2013;266(3):717–40.Google Scholar
  4. Tirumani SH, Shanbhogue AKP, Prasad SR. Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of endometrial and cervical carcinomas. Radiol Clin North Am. 2013;51(6):1087–110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mukesh G. Harisinghani
    • 1
  • Arumugam Rajesh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHarvard Medical School Massachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Tr Leicester General HospitalLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations