Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Common Path: Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Müllerian and Wolffian Duct Anomalies

  • New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and KK Porter, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review summarizes the pathway of Mullerian and Wolffian duct development, anomalies that result from disruptions to this pathway, and the characteristics on advanced imaging that identify them.

Recent Findings

In-office evaluation for reproductive anomalies is usually inadequate for the diagnosis of congenital reproductive anomalies. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has usurped invasive diagnostic methods including laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, and vasography as the new gold standard. Because of its superior soft-tissue delineation and the availability of advanced functional sequences, MRI offers a sophisticated method of distinguishing reproductive anomalies from one another, characterizing the degree of defect severity, and evaluating for concomitant urogenital anomalies non-invasively and without radiation exposure to the patient.

Summary

Congenital anomalies of the Mullerian and Wolffian duct can be incredibly nuanced, requiring prompt and accurate diagnosis for management of infertility. Definitive diagnosis should be made early with MRI.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cipolla V, Guerrieri D, Pietrangeli D, Santucci D, Argiro R, de Felice C. Role of 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in the diagnostic work-up of female infertility. Acta Radiol. 2016;57(9):1132–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115617351.

  2. Abreu-Gomez J, Udare A, Shanbhogue KP, Schieda N. Update on MR urography (MRU): technique and clinical applications. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019;44(12):3800–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02085-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chalouhi GE, Millischer AE, Mahallati H, Siauve N, Melbourne A, Grevent D, et al. The use of fetal MRI for renal and urogenital tract anomalies. Prenat Diagn. 2020;40(1):100–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Mittal PK, Little B, Harri PA, Miller FH, Alexander LF, Kalb B, et al. Role of Imaging in the Evaluation of Male Infertility. Radiographics. 2017;37(3):837-54. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160125. This article provides a comprehensive overview of imaging findings and the role of imaging modalities for commonly encountered pathologies contributing to male infertility, including Mullerian and Wolffian anomalies. We recommend this article for readers seeking more information on imaging of congenital anomalies of the male reproductive system.

  5. Sihag P, Tandon A, Pal R, Jain BK, Bhatt S, Kaur S, et al. Sonography in male infertility: a look beyond the obvious. J Ultrasound. 2018;21(3):265–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-018-0294-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Han BH, Park SB, Seo JT, Chun YK. Usefulness of testicular volume, apparent diffusion coefficient, and normalized apparent diffusion coefficient in the MRI evaluation of infertile men with azoospermia. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(3):543–8. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cai W, Min X, Chen D, Fan C, Feng Z, Li B, et al. Noninvasive differentiation of obstructive azoospermia and nonobstructive azoospermia using multimodel diffusion weighted imaging. Acad Radiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.05.039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Regent B, Skrobisz K, Kozak O, Matuszewski M, Studniarek M. MRI in the evaluation of the azoospermic male. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2020;26(4):271–6. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2019.19189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eid W, Biason-Lauber A. Why boys will be boys and girls will be girls: human sex development and its defects. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2016;108(4):365–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdrc.21143.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nassar GN, Leslie SW. Physiology, testosterone. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL). 2021.

  11. P AA, Krishan K. Embryology, Sexual Development. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL). 2021.

  12. Wilson D, Bordoni B. Embryology, Mullerian ducts (paramesonephric ducts). StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL). 2021.

  13. Kania LM, Guglielmo F, Mitchell D. Interpreting body MRI cases: classic findings in pelvic MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45(9):2916–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02615-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Davidson ERW, Barber MD. A Gartner duct cyst masquerading as anterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):1039–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta A, Kovacs JE. Perivaginal cysts. Journal of the American Osteopathic College of Radiology. 2017;6(4):16–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cope AG, Laughlin-Tommaso SK, Famuyide AO, Gebhart JB, Hopkins MR, Breitkopf DM. Clinical manifestations and outcomes in surgically managed Gartner duct cysts. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(3):473–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(5):415–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmn018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jegannathan D, Indiran V. Magnetic resonance imaging of classified and unclassified Mullerian duct anomalies: comparison of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology classifications. SA J Radiol. 2018;22(1):1259. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajr.v22i1.1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maciel C, Bharwani N, Kubik-Huch RA, Manganaro L, Otero-Garcia M, Nougaret S, et al. MRI of female genital tract congenital anomalies: European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(8):4272–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06750-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. •• Merritt BA, Behr SC, Khati NJ. Imaging of Infertility, Part 2: Hysterosalpingograms to Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2020;58(2):227-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2019.10.011. In this article, the authors describe in detail each of the Mullerian duct anomalies, as well as their features on multimodality imaging and associated clinical course. We recommend this article for readers seeking more information on imaging of congenital anomalies of the female reproductive system.

  21. Zafarani F, Ghaffari F, Ahmadi F, Soleimani Mehranjani M, Shahrzad G. Hysterosalpingography in the assessment of proximal tubal pathology: a review of congenital and acquired abnormalities. Br J Radiol. 2021:20201386. doi: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20201386.

  22. Herlin MK, Petersen MB, Brannstrom M. Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome: a comprehensive update. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):214. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-020-01491-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fukunaga T, Fujii S, Inoue C, Mukuda N, Murakami A, Tanabe Y, et al. The spectrum of imaging appearances of mullerian duct anomalies: focus on MR imaging. Jpn J Radiol. 2017;35(12):697–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-017-0681-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang Y, He YL, Yuan L, Yu JC, Xue HD, Jin ZY. Typical and atypical pelvic MRI characteristics of Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome: a comprehensive analysis of 201 patients. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(7):4014–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06681-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Konrad L, Dietze R, Kudipudi PK, Horne F, Meinhold-Heerlein I. Endometriosis in MRKH cases as a proof for the coelomic metaplasia hypothesis? Reproduction. 2019;158(2):R41–7. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-19-0106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pitot MA, Bookwalter CA, Dudiak KM. Mullerian duct anomalies coincident with endometriosis: a review. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45(6):1723–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02465-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Imaoka I, Wada A, Matsuo M, Yoshida M, Kitagaki H, Sugimura K. MR imaging of disorders associated with female infertility: use in diagnosis, treatment, and management. Radiographics. 2003;23(6):1401–21. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.236025115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bhagavath B, Ludwin A, Lindheim SR. Reunification of the unicornuate uterus and the remnant horn- proceed with caution! Fertil Steril. 2020;114(5):981–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ludwin A, Lindheim SR. Unicornuate uterus and the noncommunicating functional horn: continued debate on the diagnosis, classification, and treatment. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(4):772–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bhagavath B, Ellie G, Griffiths KM, Winter T, Alur-Gupta S, Richardson C, et al. Uterine malformations: an update of diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2017;72(6):377–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0000000000000444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Turocy JM, Rackow BW. Uterine factor in recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Perinatol. 2019;43(2):74–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2018.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Goyal LD, Dhaliwal B, Singh P, Ganjoo S, Goyal V. Management of Mullerian development anomalies: 9 years’ experience of a tertiary care center. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2020;9(2):81–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_13_19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. • Coleman AD, Arbuckle JL. Advanced Imaging for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Coexistent Renal and Mullerian Abnormalities. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19(11):89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0840-x. This article details common urologic anomalies associated with Mullerian duct defects and reviews associated imaging findings.

  34. Cekdemir YE, Mutlu U, Acar D, Altay C, Secil M, Dogan OE. The accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021:1–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2021.1877646.

  35. Graupera B, Pascual MA, Hereter L, Browne JL, Ubeda B, Rodriguez I, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies using ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(5):616–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14825.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address Aao, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):530–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.014.

  37. Grimbizis GF. The pathophysiology of septate uterus. BJOG. 2019;126(10):1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15832.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Robbins JB, Broadwell C, Chow LC, Parry JP, Sadowski EA. Mullerian duct anomalies: embryological development, classification, and MRI assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Donnez J. Arcuate uterus: a legitimate pathological entity? Fertil Steril. 2018;109(4):610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ludwin A, Martins WP, Nastri CO, Ludwin I, Coelho Neto MA, Leitao VM, et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):101–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18923.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Coelho Neto MA, Ludwin A, Petraglia F, Martins WP. Definition, prevalence, clinical relevance and treatment of T-shaped uterus: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;57(3):366–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Sood A, Akhtar M. T-shaped Uterus in the 21(st) Century (Post DES era) - we need to know more! J Hum Reprod Sci. 2019;12(4):283–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_101_19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Olpin JD, Moeni A, Willmore RJ, Heilbrun ME. MR Imaging of Mullerian fusion anomalies. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25(3):563–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2017.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Libretti S, Aeddula NR. Embryology, Genitourinary. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL). 2021.

  45. Friedman MA, Aguilar L, Heyward Q, Wheeler C, Caldamone A. Screening for Mullerian anomalies in patients with unilateral renal agenesis: leveraging early detection to prevent complications. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(2):144–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ramanathan S, Kumar D, Khanna M, Al Heidous M, Sheikh A, Virmani V, et al. Multi-modality imaging review of congenital abnormalities of kidney and upper urinary tract. World J Radiol. 2016;8(2):132–41. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. O’Flynn O’Brien KL, Bhatia V, Homafar M, Gong YY, Winsten MT, Gerber J, et al. The prevalence of Mullerian Anomalies in women with a diagnosed renal anomaly. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2021;34(2):154–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2020.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Salastekar N, Coelho M, Majmudar A, Gupta S. Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich syndrome: a rare cause of abdominal pain and dyspareunia. Radiol Case Rep. 2019;14(10):1297–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radcr.2019.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hofmann A, Vauth F, Roesch WH. Zinner syndrome and infertility horizontal line a literature review based on a clinical case. Int J Impot Res. 2021;33(2):191–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-00360-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shima Y, Harigane Y, Fukami T. Prenatal detection of Zinner syndrome. Pediatr Int. 2020;62(11):1299–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/ped.14335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jiang XS, Wang HJ, Lin JH, Guo Y, Sun CH, Lin L, et al. Zinner’s syndrome: clinical features and imaging diagnosis. Asian J Androl. 2018;20(3):316–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.210295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tan Z, Li B, Zhang L, Han P, Huang H, Taylor A, et al. Classifying seminal vesicle cysts in the diagnosis and treatment of Zinner syndrome: a report of six cases and review of available literature. Andrologia. 2020;52(1): e13397. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.13397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Important •• Very important

  1. Infertility workup for the women’s health specialist. ACOG committee opinion, Number 781. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(6):e377–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62:2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.03.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility and impaired fecundity in the United States, 1982–2010: data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Natl Health Stat Report. 2013(67):1–18, 1 p following 9.

  4. Passos I, Britto RL. Diagnosis and treatment of mullerian malformations. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(2):183–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2020.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Merritt BA, Behr SC, Khati NJ. Imaging of infertility, Part 1: hysterosalpingograms to magnetic resonance imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2020;58(2):215–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2019.10.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Canellas R, Rosenkrantz AB, Taouli B, Sala E, Saini S, Pedrosa I, et al. Abbreviated MRI protocols for the abdomen. Radiographics. 2019;39(3):744–58. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pan HX, Liu P, Duan H, Li PF, Chen RL, Tang L, et al. Using 3D MRI can potentially enhance the ability of trained surgeons to more precisely diagnose Mullerian duct anomalies compared to MR alone. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;228:313–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Duan N, Chen X, Yin Y, Wang Z, Chen R. Comparison between magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography and conventional hysterosalpingography: direct visualization of the fallopian tubes using a novel MRI contrast agent mixture. Acta Radiol. 2020;61(7):1001–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185119883712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. • Volondat M, Fontas E, Delotte J, Fatfouta I, Chevallier P, Chassang M. Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in diagnostic work-up of female infertility - comparison with conventional hysterosalpingography: a randomised study. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(2):501-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5572-2. This randomized clinical trial provides a direct comparison between the diagnostic performance of hysterosalpingography using MRI and radiography. The authors propose that MRI hysterosalpingography may be considered a “one stop shop” for evaluation of uterine and extra-uterine anomalies, however its ability to ensure tubal patency is limited compared to conventional methods.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Neha Udayakumar

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Elainea Smith & Kristin K. Porter

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Amy Boone

Authors
  1. Neha Udayakumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elainea Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy Boone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kristin K. Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neha Udayakumar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Udayakumar, N., Smith, E., Boone, A. et al. A Common Path: Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Müllerian and Wolffian Duct Anomalies. Curr Urol Rep 24, 1–9 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01138-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01138-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation