Todd D Deutch1, Alfred Z Abuhamad. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA 23507, USA. deutchtd@evms.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the published literature and determine the roles that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endovaginal 3-dimensional ultrasonography (3DUS) play in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies (MDAs). METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to identify all of the articles pertaining to the use of MRI or 3DUS for the evaluation or diagnosis of MDAs. Clinical studies, review articles, case reports, and descriptive studies were reviewed. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging and 3DUS are highly sensitive and specific in identifying women with MDAs. Magnetic resonance imaging is 100% to 28.6% sensitive and 100% to 66% specific in correctly categorizing MDAs. Three-dimensional ultrasonography is 100% to 98% sensitive and 100% specific in correctly categorizing MDAs. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, both MRI and 3DUS are adequate modalities for identifying women with MDAs. There is a lack of studies comparing MRI with 3DUS for the diagnosis and categorization of MDAs. However, it seems likely that 3DUS is more sensitive and specific than MRI in categorizing specific types of MDAs. The high sensitivity and specificity of 3DUS make it an ideal tool for identifying women with MDAs that are amenable to hysteroscopic resection. Therefore, we believe that as practitioners become more experienced, 3DUS will emerge as the reference standard for the diagnosis of MDAs.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the published literature and determine the roles that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endovaginal 3-dimensional ultrasonography (3DUS) play in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies (MDAs). METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to identify all of the articles pertaining to the use of MRI or 3DUS for the evaluation or diagnosis of MDAs. Clinical studies, review articles, case reports, and descriptive studies were reviewed. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging and 3DUS are highly sensitive and specific in identifying women with MDAs. Magnetic resonance imaging is 100% to 28.6% sensitive and 100% to 66% specific in correctly categorizing MDAs. Three-dimensional ultrasonography is 100% to 98% sensitive and 100% specific in correctly categorizing MDAs. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, both MRI and 3DUS are adequate modalities for identifying women with MDAs. There is a lack of studies comparing MRI with 3DUS for the diagnosis and categorization of MDAs. However, it seems likely that 3DUS is more sensitive and specific than MRI in categorizing specific types of MDAs. The high sensitivity and specificity of 3DUS make it an ideal tool for identifying women with MDAs that are amenable to hysteroscopic resection. Therefore, we believe that as practitioners become more experienced, 3DUS will emerge as the reference standard for the diagnosis of MDAs.
Authors: Y Y Chan; K Jayaprakasan; J Zamora; J G Thornton; N Raine-Fenning; A Coomarasamy Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 15.610