Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 6/2011

01-12-2011 | Pictorial essay

Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging

Authors: Leonardo Marcal, Maria Angela Nothaft, Francisco Coelho, Richard Volpato, Revathy Iyer

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 6/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Mullerian duct anomalies (MDAs) are rare, affecting approximately 1% of all women and about 3% of women with poor reproductive outcomes. These congenital anomalies usually result from one of the following categories of abnormalities of the mullerian ducts: failure of formation (no development or underdevelopment) or failure of fusion of the mullerian ducts. The American Fertility Society (AFS) classification of uterine anomalies is widely accepted and includes seven distinct categories. MR imaging has consolidated its role as the imaging modality of choice in the evaluation of MDA. MRI is capable of demonstrating the anatomy of the female genital tract remarkably well and is able to provide detailed images of the intra-uterine zonal anatomy, delineate the external fundal contour of the uterus, and comprehensively image the entire female pelvis in multiple imaging planes in a single examination. The purpose of this pictorial essay is to show the value of MRI in the diagnosis of MDA and to review the key imaging features of anomalies of formation and fusion, emphasizing the relevance of accurate diagnosis before therapeutic intervention.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ashton D, Amin HK, Richart RM, Neuwirth RS (1988) The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 72:28–30PubMed Ashton D, Amin HK, Richart RM, Neuwirth RS (1988) The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 72:28–30PubMed
2.
go back to reference Byrne J, Nussbaum-Blask A, Taylor WS, et al. (2000) Prevalence of Mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet 94:9–12PubMedCrossRef Byrne J, Nussbaum-Blask A, Taylor WS, et al. (2000) Prevalence of Mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet 94:9–12PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Troiano RN, McCarthy SM (2004) Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233:19–34PubMedCrossRef Troiano RN, McCarthy SM (2004) Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233:19–34PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Green LK, Harris RE (1976) Uterine anomalies. Frequency of diagnosis and associated obstetric complications. Obstet Gynecol 47:427–429PubMed Green LK, Harris RE (1976) Uterine anomalies. Frequency of diagnosis and associated obstetric complications. Obstet Gynecol 47:427–429PubMed
5.
go back to reference Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID (2000) The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 73:1–14PubMedCrossRef Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID (2000) The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 73:1–14PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Massari C, Candiani GB (1989) Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol 74:844–847PubMed Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Massari C, Candiani GB (1989) Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol 74:844–847PubMed
7.
go back to reference Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH (1992) Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 183:795–800PubMed Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH (1992) Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 183:795–800PubMed
8.
go back to reference Harger JH, Archer DF, Marchese SG, Muracca-Clemens M, Garver KL (1983) Etiology of recurrent pregnancy losses and outcome of subsequent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 62:574–581PubMed Harger JH, Archer DF, Marchese SG, Muracca-Clemens M, Garver KL (1983) Etiology of recurrent pregnancy losses and outcome of subsequent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 62:574–581PubMed
9.
go back to reference Speroff L, Glass RH, Kase NG (1998) Development of the mullerian system. In: Mitchell C (ed) Clinical gynecologic endocrinology and infertility. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, Lippincott, p 124 Speroff L, Glass RH, Kase NG (1998) Development of the mullerian system. In: Mitchell C (ed) Clinical gynecologic endocrinology and infertility. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, Lippincott, p 124
10.
12.
go back to reference Junqueira BL, Allen LM, Spitzer RF, et al. (2009) Mullerian duct anomalies and mimics in children and adolescents: correlative intraoperative assessment with clinical imaging. Radiographics 29:1085–1103PubMedCrossRef Junqueira BL, Allen LM, Spitzer RF, et al. (2009) Mullerian duct anomalies and mimics in children and adolescents: correlative intraoperative assessment with clinical imaging. Radiographics 29:1085–1103PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Console D, Tamburrini S, Barresi D, et al. (2001) The value of the MR imaging in the evaluation of Mullerian duct anomalies. Radiol Med 102:226–232PubMed Console D, Tamburrini S, Barresi D, et al. (2001) The value of the MR imaging in the evaluation of Mullerian duct anomalies. Radiol Med 102:226–232PubMed
14.
go back to reference Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, et al. (1990) Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 176:715–720PubMed Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, et al. (1990) Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 176:715–720PubMed
15.
go back to reference Golan A, Langer R, Bukovsky I, Caspi E (1989) Congenital anomalies of the mullerian system. Fertil Steril 51:747–755PubMed Golan A, Langer R, Bukovsky I, Caspi E (1989) Congenital anomalies of the mullerian system. Fertil Steril 51:747–755PubMed
16.
go back to reference Acien P (1997) Incidence of Mullerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod 12:1372–1376PubMedCrossRef Acien P (1997) Incidence of Mullerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod 12:1372–1376PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Raziel A, Arieli S, Bukovsky I, Caspi E, Golan A (1994) Investigation of the uterine cavity in recurrent aborters. Fertil Steril 62:1080–1082PubMed Raziel A, Arieli S, Bukovsky I, Caspi E, Golan A (1994) Investigation of the uterine cavity in recurrent aborters. Fertil Steril 62:1080–1082PubMed
18.
go back to reference Ansbacher R (1983) Uterine anomalies and future pregnancies. Clin Perinatol 10:295–304PubMed Ansbacher R (1983) Uterine anomalies and future pregnancies. Clin Perinatol 10:295–304PubMed
19.
go back to reference Krysiewicz S (1992) Infertility in women: diagnostic evaluation with hysterosalpingography and other imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159:253–261PubMed Krysiewicz S (1992) Infertility in women: diagnostic evaluation with hysterosalpingography and other imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159:253–261PubMed
20.
go back to reference Troiano RN (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of mullerian duct anomalies of the uterus. Top Magn Reson Imaging 14:269–279PubMedCrossRef Troiano RN (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of mullerian duct anomalies of the uterus. Top Magn Reson Imaging 14:269–279PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Rock JA, Schlaff WD (1985) The obstetric consequences of uterovaginal anomalies. Fertil Steril 43:681–692PubMed Rock JA, Schlaff WD (1985) The obstetric consequences of uterovaginal anomalies. Fertil Steril 43:681–692PubMed
Metadata
Title
Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging
Authors
Leonardo Marcal
Maria Angela Nothaft
Francisco Coelho
Richard Volpato
Revathy Iyer
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 6/2011
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-010-9681-x

Other articles of this Issue 6/2011

Abdominal Radiology 6/2011 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine