Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 3, pp 545–553 | Cite as

The role of cine MR imaging in the assessment of uterine function

  • Deborah Monteiro SoaresEmail author
  • Heron Werner Junior
  • Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt
  • Flavia Paiva Proença Lobo Lopes
  • Marco Aurelio Pinho de Oliveira



To review the literature on uterine contraction and to highlight magnetic resonance imaging using the cine technique as a useful method to evaluate these movements.


The literature research on PubMed database was done up to February 2019 with restriction to English language about articles regarding uterine peristalsis and cine MR.


Infertility is a common clinical problem and a source of frustration for those who want to have children. Uterine movements are crucial elements in respect of successful conception, implantation, and the development of a healthy pregnancy. It is known that the direction and frequency of uterine peristalsis are closely related to the different phases of the menstrual cycle, and that changes in its activity may interfere with reproduction. One condition that has been linked with infertility by several studies is dysfunctional uterine contractility. Magnetic resonance imaging, using the cine technique, has been shown to be a useful tool in the evaluation of these movements, allowing the identification of patients with some type of dysfunction and establish strategies to increase pregnancy rates.


Cine MR is an excellent imaging method for the evaluation of uterine peristalsis and identification of dysfunctional contractions.


Uterine peristalsis Uterine contraction Infertility Cine MRI Sperm transport 


Author contributions

DMS data collection, manuscript writing. HWJ, LKB and FPPLL manuscript editing. MAPO project development, data collection, manuscript editing.


No funding was received for the preparation of this review.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material (3.7 mb)
Supplementary file1 (MOV 3806 kb) (4.9 mb)
Supplementary file2 (MOV 5014 kb) (4.8 mb)
Supplementary file3 (MOV 4880 kb)
404_2019_5222_MOESM4_ESM.mp4 (3.1 mb)
Supplementary file4 (MP4 3166 kb)
404_2019_5222_MOESM5_ESM.mp4 (3.7 mb)
Supplementary file5 (MP4 3805 kb)


  1. 1.
    Giudice LC (2010) Clinical practice: endometriosis. N Engl J Med 362(25):238998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olive DL, Pritts EA (2001) Treatment of endometriosis. N Engl J Med 345:266–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrao MS, Dias JA Jr, Bellelis P, Podgaec S, Bautzer CR, Gromatsky C (2009) Endometriosis of the ureter and bladder are not associated diseases. Fertil Steril. 91(5):1662–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vigano P, Parazzini F, Somigliana E, Vercellini P (2004) Endometriosis: epidemiology and aetiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 18:177–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sillou S, Poirée S, Millischer AE, Chapron C, Hélénon O (2015) Urinary endometriosis: MR imaging appearance with surgical and histological correlations. Diagn Interv Imaging. 96(4):373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koninckx PR, Meuleman C, Demeyere S, Lesaffre E, Cornillie FJ (1991) Suggestive evidence that pelvic endometriosis is a progressive disease, whereas deeply infiltrating endometriosis is associated with pelvic pain. Fertil Steril 55(4):759–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams TJ, Pratt JH (1977) Endometriosis in 1000 consecutive celiotomies: incidence and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 129(3):245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ashrafi M, Sadatmahalleh SJ, Akhoond MR, Talebi M (2016) Evaluation of risk factors associated with endometriosis in infertile women. Int J Fertil Steril. 10(1):11–21Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kvaskoff M, Mu F, Terry KL et al (2015) Endometriosis: a high-risk population for 337 major chronic diseases? Hum Reprod Update 21:500–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parazzini F, Esposito G, Tozzi L, Noli S, Bianchi S (2017) Epidemiology of endometriosis and its comorbidities. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 209:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sinaii N, Cleary SD, Ballweg ML, Nieman LK, Stratton P (2002) High rates of autoimmune and endocrine disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and atopic diseases among women with endometriosis: a survey analysis. Hum Reprod. 17(10):2715–2724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kido A, Togashi K, Nishino M, Miyake K, Koyama T, Fujimoto R, Iwasaku K, Fujii S, Hayakawa K (2007) Cine MR imaging of uterine peristalsis in patients with endometriosis. Eur Radiol. 17(7):1813–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matalliotakis IM, Goumenou AG, Matalliotakis M, Arici A (2010) Uterine anomalies in women with endometriosis. J Endometr. 2:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harada T, Khine YM, Kaponis A, Nikellis T, Decavalas G, Taniguchi F (2016) The impact of adenomyosis on women's fertility. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 71(9):557–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, Noe M, Kissler S, Leyendecker G (2005) Adenomyosis in endometriosis-prevalence and impact on fertility: Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 20(8):2309–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leyendecker G, Kunz G, Herbertz M, Beil D, Huppert P, Mall G, Kissler S, Noe M, Wildt L (2004) Uterine peristaltic activity and the development of endometriosis. Ann NY Acad Sci 1034:338–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noe M, Kunz G, Herbertz M, Mall G, Leyendecker G (1999) The cyclic pattern of the immunocytochemical expression of oestrogen and progesterone receptors in human myometrial and endometrial layers: characterisation of the endometrial-subendometrial unit. Hum Reprod 14:101–110Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Togashi K (2007) Uterine contractility evaluated on cine magnetic resonance imaging. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1101:62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hricak H, Alpers C, Crooks LE, Sheldon PE (1983) Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 141:1119–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daido S, Kido A, Kataoka M, Nakai A, Fujimoto K, Kusahara H, Okada T, Togashi K (2017) MR imaging of uterine morphology and dynamic changes during lactation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 45(2):617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Togashi K, Nakai A, Sugimura K (2001) Anatomy and physiology of the female pelvis: MR imaging revisited. J Magn Reson Imaging 13(842):849Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C, Kinkel K, Cunha TM, Guerra A, Manganaro L, Buñesch L, Kido A, Togashi K, Thomassin-Naggara I, Rockall AG (2017) European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol. 27(7):2765–2775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lyons EA, Taylor PJ, Zheng XH, Ballard G, Levi CS, Kredentser JV (1991) Characterization of subendometrial myometrial contractions throughout the menstrual cycle in normal fertile women. Fertil Steril 55(4):771–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chalubinski K, Deutinger J, Bernaschek G (1993) Vaginosonography for recording of cycle-related myometrial contractions. Fertil Steril 59(1):225–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakai A, Togashi K, Yamaoka T, Fujiwara T, Ueda H, Koyama T, Kobayashi H, Kagimura T, Fujii S, Konishi J (2003) Uterine peristalsis shown on cine MR imaging using ultrafast sequence. J Magn Reson Imaging 18:726–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu S, Zhang Q, Yin C, Chen W, Chan Q, He J, Zhu B (2018) An optimised repetition time (TR) for cine imaging of uterine peristalsis on 3 T MRI. Clin Radiol. 73(7):678.e7–678.e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu S, Zhang Q, Yin C, Liu S, Chan Q, Chen W, He J, Zhu B (2016) Optimized approach to cine MRI of uterine peristalsis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 44(6):1397–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bazot M, Bornier C, Dubernard G, Roseau G, Cortez A, Darai E (2007) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and rectal endoscopic sonography for the prediction of location of deep pelvic endometriosis. Hum Reprod 22:1457–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brandão A, Crispi C, Pinho M (2014) Magnetic Resonance Atlas of Deep Endometriosis: MRI and Laparoscopic Correlations, 1st edn. Revinter, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chamie LP, Blasbalg R, Goncalves MO, Carvalho FM, Abrao MS, de Oliveira IS (2009) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and preoperative assessment of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 106:198–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vimercati et al (2012) Accuracy of transvaginal sonography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance-colonography for the presurgical staging of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40(5):592–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marcal L, Nothaft MA, Coelho F, Volpato R, Iyer R (2011) Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging. Abdom Imaging. 36(6):756–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K (2011) Adenomyosis: usual and unusual imaging manifestations, pitfalls, and problem-solving MR imaging techniques. Radiographics. 31(1):99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hottat N, Larrousse C, Anaf V et al (2009) Endometriosis: contribution of 30-T pelvic MR imaging in preoperative assessment—initial results. Radiology 253(1):126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Manganaro L, Fierro F, Tomei A et al (2012) Feasibility of 30-T pelvic MR imaging in the evaluation of endometriosis. Eur J Radiol 81(6):1381–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rousset P, Peyron N, Charlot M et al (2014) Bowel endometriosis: preoperative diagnostic accuracy of 30-T MR enterography–initial results. Radiology 273(1):117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Steensma AB, van Santbrink EJ et al (2014) Can magnetic resonance imaging at 30-Tesla reliably detect patients with endometriosis? Initial results. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40(4):1051–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Togashi K (1993) MR imaging of the female pelvis. Igaku-shoin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fujiwara T et al (2004) Kinematics of the uterus: cine mode MR imaging. Radiographics 24:e19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kido A, Ascher SM, Hahn W, Kishimoto K, Kashitani N, Jha RC, Togashi K, Spies JB (2014) 3 T MRI uterine peristalsis: comparison of symptomatic fibroid patients versus controls. Clin Radiol. 69(5):468–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leyendecker G, Kunz G, Noe M, Herbertz M, Mall G (1998) Endometriosis: a dysfunction and disease of the archimetra. Hum Reprod Update 4:752–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ijland MM, Evers JL, Dunselman GA, van Katwijk C, Lo CR, Hoogland HJ (1996) Endometrial wavelike movements during the menstrual cycle. Fertil. Steril. 65:746–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kuijsters NPM, Methorst WG, Kortenhorst MSQ, Rabotti C, Mischi M, Schoot BC (2017) Uterine peristalsis and fertility: current knowledge and future perspectives: a review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 35(1):50–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fanchin R, Righini C, Olivennes F, Taylor S, de Ziegler D, Frydman R (1998) Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in- fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 13:1968–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bellver J, Simón C (2018) Implantation failure of endometrial origin: what is new? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 30(4):229–236Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kava-Braverman A, Martinez F, Rodriguez I et al (2017) What is a difficult transfer? Analysis of 7714 embryo transfers: the impact of maneuvers during embryo transfers on pregnancy rate and a proposal of objective assessment. Fertil Steril 107:657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fanchin R, Ayoubi JM, Righini C, Olivennes F, Schonauer LM, Frydman R (2001) Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum. Reprod. 16:1115–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fanchin R, Righini C, de Ziegler D, Olivennes F, Ledee N, Frydman R (2001) Effects of vaginal progesterone administration on uterine contractility at the time of embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 75:1136–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ayoubi JM, Epiney M, Brioschi PA, Fanchin R, Chardonnens D, de Ziegler D (2003) Comparison of changes in uterine contraction frequency after ovulation in the menstrual cycle and in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil. Steril. 79:1101–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhu L, Che HS, Xiao L, Li YP (2014) Uterine peristalsis before embryo transfer affects the chance of clinical pregnancy in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Hum. Reprod. 29:1238–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Huang QY, Rong MH, Lan AH et al (2017) The impact of atosiban on pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: a meta- analysis. PLoS ONE 12:e0175501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Li J, Chen Y, Wang A, Zhang H (2017) A meta-analysis of atosiban supplementation among patients undergoing assisted reproduction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296:623–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Leyendecker G, Kunz G, Wildt L, Beil D, Deininger H (1996) Uterine hyperperistalsis and dysperistalsis as dysfunctions of the mechanism of rapid sperm transport in patients with endometriosis and infertility. Hum Reprod 11(7):1542–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiology DepartmentClinic of Imaging Diagnosis (CDPI)/DASARio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Radiology DepartmentUniversidade Federal FluminenseNiteróiBrazil
  3. 3.Radiology DepartmentFederal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  4. 4.Department of GynecologyState University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations