Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MR imaging in the triage of pregnant patients with acute abdominal and pelvic pain

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively assess the performance of MR imaging in the evaluation and triage of pregnant patients presenting with acute abdominal or pelvic pain.

Method and materials

MRI studies of pregnant patients who were referred for acute abdominal pain between 2001 and 2007 were included. MR images were retrospectively reviewed and compared with surgical and pathologic findings and clinical follow-up data. Analysis of imaging findings included evaluation of the visceral organs, bowel and mesentery, appendix (for presence of appendicitis), ovaries (detection and adnexal masses were evaluated), focal inflammation, presence of abscesses, and any other abnormal findings.

Results

A total of 118 pregnant patients were included. MR findings were inconclusive in 2 patients and were positive for acute appendicitis in 11 patients (n = 9 confirmed by surgery, n = 2 improved without surgery). One patient with inconclusive MR had surgically confirmed appendicitis; the other patient with inconclusive MR had surgically confirmed adnexal torsion. Other surgical/interventional diagnoses suggested by MR imaging were adnexal torsion (n = 4), abscess (n = 4), acute cholecystitis (n = 1), and gastric volvulus (n = 1). Two patients with MR diagnosis of torsion improved without surgery. One patient with MR diagnosis of abscess had biliary cystadenoma at surgery. The rest of the MR diagnoses above were confirmed surgically or interventionally. MR imaging was normal in 67 patients and demonstrated medically treatable etiology in 28 patients: adnexal lesions (n = 9), urinary pathology (n = 6), cholelithiasis (n = 4), degenerating fibroid (n = 3), DVT (n = 2), hernia (n = 1), colitis (n = 1), thick terminal ileum (n = 1), rectus hematoma (n = 1). Three of these patients had negative surgical exploration and one had adnexal mass excision during pregnancy. Other patients were discharged with medical treatment. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive values (ppv), and negative predictive values (npv) of MR imaging for acute appendicitis, and surgical/ interventional diagnoses were 90.0% vs. 88.9%, 98.1% vs. 95.0%, 97.5% vs. 94.1%, 81.8% vs. 76.2%, 99.1% vs. 97.9%, respectively.

Conclusion

MR imaging is an excellent modality for diagnosis of acute appendicitis and exclusion of diseases requiring surgical/interventional treatment. Therefore MR imaging is useful for triage of pregnant patients with acute abdominal and pelvic pain.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cappell MS, Friedel D (2003) Abdominal pain during pregnancy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 32:1–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baer JL, Reis RA, Arens RA (1932) Appendicitis in pregnancy. JAMA 52:1359–1364

    Google Scholar 

  3. Oto A, Srinivasan PN, Ernst RD, et al. (2006) Revisiting MRI for appendix location during pregnancy. AJR 186:883–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cobben LP, Groot I, Haans L, et al. (2004) MRI for clinically suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. AJR 183:671–675

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Birchard KR, Brown MA, Hyslop WB, et al. (2005) MRI of acute adominal and pelvic pain in pregnant patients. AJR 184:452–458

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Oto A, Ernst RD, Shah R, et al. (2005) Right-lower-quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis in pregnant women: evaluation with MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology 234:445–451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pedrosa I, Levine D, Eyvazzadeh AD, et al. (2006) MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Radiology 238:891–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rha SE, Byun JY, Jung SE et al. (2002) CT and MR imaging features of adnexal torsion. RadioGraphics 22:283–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Born C, Wirth S, Stabler A, et al. (2004) Diagnosis of adnexal torsion in the third trimester of pregnancy: a case report. Abdom Imaging 29:123–127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Spencer JA, Chahal R, Kelly A, et al. (2004) Evaluation of painful hydronephrosis in pregnancy: magnetic resonance urographic patterns in physiological dilatation versus calculous obstruction. J Urol 171:256–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sharp HT (2002) The acute abdomen during pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 45:405–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stone K (2002) Acute abdominal emergencies associated with pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 45:553–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sharp HT (1994) Gastrointestinal surgical conditions during pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 37:306–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mortele KJ, Ros PR (2001) Cystic focal liver lesions in the adult: differential CT and MR imaging features. Radiographics 21:895–910

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shellock FG, Kanal E (1999) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:477–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Novak Z, Thurmond AS, Ross PL, et al. (1993) Gadolinium-DTPA transplacental transfer and distribution in fetal tissue in rabbits. Invest Radiol 28:828–830

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chapon C, Franconi F, Roux J, et al. (2005) Prenatal evaluation of kidney function in mice using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Anat Embryol (Berl) 209:263–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. (2007) ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007. AJR 188:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lim HK, Bae SH, Seo GS (1992) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women: value of sonography. AJR 159:539–542

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Barloon TJ, Brown BP, Abu-Yousef MM, et al. (1995) Sonography of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Abdom Imaging 20:149–151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kok RD, de Vries MM, Heerschap A, et al. (2004) Absence of harmful effects of magnetic resonance exposure at 1.5T in utero during the third trimester of pregnancy: a follow-up study. Magn Reson Imaging 22(6):851–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Baker PN, Johnson IR, Harvey PR, et al. (1994) A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero with echo-planar magnetic resonance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170:32–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Myers C, Duncan KR, Gowland PA, et al. (1998) Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI. Br J Radiol 71(845):549–551

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Clements H, Duncan KR, Fielding K, et al. (2000) Infants exposed to MRI in utero have a normal paediatric assessment at 9 months of age. Br J Radiol 73(866):190–194

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. US Food and Drug Administration (1988) Magnetic resonance diagnostic device: panel recommendation and report on petitions for MR classification. Fed Reg 53:7575–7579

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kirshenbaum M, Mishra V, Kuo D, et al. (2003) Resolving appendicitis: role of CT. Abdom Imaging 28:276–279

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, The University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Avenue, MC 2026, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Aytekin Oto

  2. Department of Radiology, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Randy D. Ernst

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA

    Labib M. Ghulmiyyah & George Saade

  4. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA

    Thomas K. Nishino, Douglas Hughes & Gregory Chaljub

Authors
  1. Aytekin Oto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Randy D. Ernst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Labib M. Ghulmiyyah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas K. Nishino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Douglas Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gregory Chaljub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. George Saade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aytekin Oto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oto, A., Ernst, R.D., Ghulmiyyah, L.M. et al. MR imaging in the triage of pregnant patients with acute abdominal and pelvic pain. Abdom Imaging 34, 243–250 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9381-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9381-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation