Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 10, pp 3408–3431 | Cite as

Incidental fetal imaging with CT: a pictorial essay

  • Kelly Tornow
  • Kristen BishopEmail author
  • Travis Browning


Although CT is not the first choice for abdominal imaging of pregnant patients, it can be indicated for pregnant patients with emergent life-threatening conditions. It is prudent in these cases for the radiologist to be familiar with the normal appearance of the pregnant uterus on CT and to evaluate the female pelvis for potential maternal and fetal abnormalities. We aim to provide examples of the normal CT appearance of the female pelvis related to different gestational ages and to demonstrate variant and abnormal conditions of pregnancy which may be identified by CT.


Humans Female Pregnancy Fetus Uterus Pelvis Tomography, X-ray computed 



  1. 1.
    Lazarus E, Mayo-Smith WW, Mainiero MB, Spencer PK (2007) CT in the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in pregnant women. Radiology 244 (3):784-790.
  2. 2.
    Jain C (2019) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 723: Guidelines for Diagnostic Imaging During Pregnancy and Lactation. Obstet Gynecol 133 (1):186.
  3. 3.
    ACR-SPR practice parameter for imaging pregnant or potentially pregnant adolescents and women with ionizing radiation (2018). American College of Radiology and the Society for Pediatric Radiology Resolution 39Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shin DS, Poder L, Courtier J, Naeger DM, Westphalen AC, Coakley FV (2011) CT and MRI of early intrauterine pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196 (2):325-330.
  5. 5.
    Rodgers SK, Chang C, DeBardeleben JT, Horrow MM (2015) Normal and Abnormal US Findings in Early First-Trimester Pregnancy: Review of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound 2012 Consensus Panel Recommendations. Radiographics 35 (7):2135-2148.
  6. 6.
    Wei SH, Helmy M, Cohen AJ (2009) CT evaluation of placental abruption in pregnant trauma patients. Emerg Radiol 16 (5):365-373.
  7. 7.
    Fadl S, Moshiri M, Fligner CL, Katz DS, Dighe M (2017) Placental Imaging: Normal Appearance with Review of Pathologic Findings. Radiographics 37 (3):979-998.
  8. 8.
    Elsayes KM, Trout AT, Friedkin AM, Liu PS, Bude RO, Platt JF, Menias CO (2009) Imaging of the placenta: a multimodality pictorial review. Radiographics 29 (5):1371-1391.
  9. 9.
    Chauhan SP, Scardo JA, Hayes E, Abuhamad AZ, Berghella V (2010) Twins: prevalence, problems, and preterm births. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203 (4):305-315.
  10. 10.
    Lee HJ, Norwitz ER, Shaw J (2010) Contemporary management of fibroids in pregnancy. Rev Obstet Gynecol 3 (1):20-27Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooper NP, Okolo S (2005) Fibroids in pregnancy–common but poorly understood. Obstet Gynecol Surv 60 (2):132-138Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Febronio EM, Rosas GdQ, Cardia PP, D’Ippolito G (2012) Ectopic pregnancy: pictorial essay focusing on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Radiologia Brasileira 45:279-282Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kao LY, Scheinfeld MH, Chernyak V, Rozenblit AM, Oh S, Dym RJ (2014) Beyond ultrasound: CT and MRI of ectopic pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202 (4):904-911.
  14. 14.
    Born C, Wirth S, Stabler A, Reiser M (2004) Diagnosis of adnexal torsion in the third trimester of pregnancy: a case report. Abdom Imaging 29 (1):123-127.
  15. 15.
    Hiller N, Appelbaum L, Simanovsky N, Lev-Sagi A, Aharoni D, Sella T (2007) CT features of adnexal torsion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189 (1):124-129.
  16. 16.
    Chang HC, Bhatt S, Dogra VS (2008) Pearls and pitfalls in diagnosis of ovarian torsion. Radiographics 28 (5):1355-1368.
  17. 17.
    Duigenan S, Oliva E, Lee SI (2012) Ovarian torsion: diagnostic features on CT and MRI with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198 (2):W122-131.
  18. 18.
    Moshos E, Twickler D (2011) Intrauterine devices in early pregnancy: findings on ultrasound and clinical outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 204:427.e421-426Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Committee Opinion No 672 Summary Clinical Challenges of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods (2016). Obstet Gynecol 128 (3):674-675.
  20. 20.
    Van Calsteren K, Vergote I, Amant F (2005) Cervical neoplasia during pregnancy: diagnosis, management and prognosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 19 (4):611-630.
  21. 21.
    Hunter MI, Tewari K, Monk BJ (2008) Cervical neoplasia in pregnancy. Part 2: current treatment of invasive disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199 (1):10-18.
  22. 22.
    Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK (2001) CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radiographics 21 (5):1155-1168.
  23. 23.
    Oyelese Y, Ananth C (2006) Placental Abruption. Obstetrics and gynecology 108:1005-1016.
  24. 24.
    Manriquez M, Srinivas G, Bollepalli S, Britt L, Drachman D (2010) Is computed tomography a reliable diagnostic modality in detecting placental injuries in the setting of acute trauma? Am J Obstet Gynecol 202 (6):611 e611-615.
  25. 25.
    Raptis CA, Mellnick VM, Raptis DA, Kitchin D, Fowler KJ, Lubner M, Bhalla S, Menias CO (2014) Imaging of trauma in the pregnant patient. Radiographics 34 (3):748-763.
  26. 26.
    Saphier NB, Kopelman TR (2014) Traumatic Abruptio Placenta Scale (TAPS): a proposed grading system of computed tomography evaluation of placental abruption in the trauma patient. Emerg Radiol 21 (1):17-22.
  27. 27.
    Mendez-Figueroa H, Dahlke JD, Vrees RA, Rouse DJ (2013) Trauma in pregnancy: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209 (1):1-10.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Texas SouthwesternDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations