OBJECTIVE: To show the flexibility in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of seminal vesicle (SV) and intra-abdominal segment of vas deferens for the patients with congenital absence of the vas deferens (CAVD), including congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens (CBAVD) and congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens (CUAVD). METHODS: Fourteen consecutive patients with CAVD had transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and further MRI evaluations. TRUS was performed using a 7.5-MHz transducer, and images of the SVs were obtained, calculated in the transaxial plane. MRI studies were performed with a 1.5-7 superconducting system, T1- and T2-weighted axial, coronal, and sagittal imaging of the pelvis was obtained. If the SVs were present, then their size was measured for the morphologic classification and diagnosis. All of the patients also received cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene mutation testing. RESULTS: In a series of 12 men with CBAVD, only 4 were found to have bilateral SV agenesis using MRI. The remaining 8 men with unilateral hypoplasia still had SV remnants. MRI also detected the intra-abdominal segment of the vas deferens. Through our study of MRI, SV agenesis is not well associated with the presence of CFTR mutation in patients with CAVD. CONCLUSION: MRI provides a precise imaginal diagnosis of SV defect, which is superior to the TRUS examination for the patients with CAVD. Compared with the previous inaccurate examination method of TRUS, this study demonstrates that MRI can provide better images for the patients with CAVD for the clinical diagnosis of existing defects of internal seminal tract and internal organs.
OBJECTIVE: To show the flexibility in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of seminal vesicle (SV) and intra-abdominal segment of vas deferens for the patients with congenital absence of the vas deferens (CAVD), including congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens (CBAVD) and congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens (CUAVD). METHODS: Fourteen consecutive patients with CAVD had transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and further MRI evaluations. TRUS was performed using a 7.5-MHz transducer, and images of the SVs were obtained, calculated in the transaxial plane. MRI studies were performed with a 1.5-7 superconducting system, T1- and T2-weighted axial, coronal, and sagittal imaging of the pelvis was obtained. If the SVs were present, then their size was measured for the morphologic classification and diagnosis. All of the patients also received cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene mutation testing. RESULTS: In a series of 12 men with CBAVD, only 4 were found to have bilateral SV agenesis using MRI. The remaining 8 men with unilateral hypoplasia still had SV remnants. MRI also detected the intra-abdominal segment of the vas deferens. Through our study of MRI, SV agenesis is not well associated with the presence of CFTR mutation in patients with CAVD. CONCLUSION: MRI provides a precise imaginal diagnosis of SV defect, which is superior to the TRUS examination for the patients with CAVD. Compared with the previous inaccurate examination method of TRUS, this study demonstrates that MRI can provide better images for the patients with CAVD for the clinical diagnosis of existing defects of internal seminal tract and internal organs.