Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uterine Fibroid Mapping

  • Uterine Fibroids (N Narvekar, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Uterine fibroids are the commonest gynaecological tumours prevalent in women during the reproductive years and after. They often present with a variety of symptoms including heavy and abnormal uterine bleeding, pain, pressure effects, infertility, and recurrent pregnancy loss. They vary in number, size, location and character, and hence, for appropriate management, it is vital to be able to confidently diagnose and describe these variables, a process also known as ‘fibroid mapping’, using the quickest and most cost effective means. This article reviews the full spectrum of modalities in common use today to help achieve this goal, outlines their relative effectiveness, and provides an expert insight where applicable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Moghadam R et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating between leiomyoma and adenomyosis. JSLS: J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2006;10(2):216.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Watkinson A, Nicholson A. Uterine artery embolisation to treat symptomatic uterine fibroids. BMJ. 2007;335(7622):720–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Levens ED et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasound for determining fibroid burden: implications for research and clinical care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(5):537.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilde S, Scott-Barrett S. Radiological appearances of uterine fibroids. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;19(3):222–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Winter L et al. Feasibility of dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography for the diagnostic work-up of infertile women. Acta Radiol. 2010;51(6):693–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khan AT, Shehmar M, Gupta JK. Uterine fibroids: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health. 2014;6:95–114. A comprehensive review of fibroid management with added emphasis on contemporary knowledge.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu FW et al. A critical assessment of morcellation and its impact on gynecologic surgery and the limitations of the existing literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):717–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Roy C et al. Acute torsion of uterine leiomyoma: CT features. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30(1):120–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dueholm M et al. Reproducibility of evaluation of the uterus by transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, hysteroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(1):195–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwartz LB et al. Does pelvic magnetic resonance imaging differentiate among the histologic subtypes of uterine leiomyomata? Fertil Steril. 1998;70(3):580–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dueholm M et al. Evaluation of the uterine cavity with magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, and diagnostic hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(2):350–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dueholm M et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis, mapping, and measurement of uterine myomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(3):409–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Radiology, S.o.I. Uterine fibroid symptoms, diagnosis and treatment. 2016; Available from: http://www.sirweb.org/patients/uterine-fibroids/.

  14. Baltarowich OH et al. Pitfalls in the sonographic diagnosis of uterine fibroids. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;151(4):725–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kerin JF, Surrey ES. Transvaginal imaging and the infertility patient. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 1991;18(4):749–77.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gaucherand P et al. Sonohysterography of the uterine cavity: preliminary investigations. J Clin Ultrasound. 1995;23(6):339–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ayida G et al. Uterine cavity assessment prior to in vitro fertilization: comparison of transvaginal scanning, saline contrast hysterosonography and hysteroscopy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;10(1):59–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wolman I et al. Reproducibility of transvaginal ultrasonographic measurements of endometrial thickness in patients with postmenopausal bleeding. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 1998;46(3):191–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cepni I et al. Comparison of transvaginal sonography, saline infusion sonography and hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine cavity pathologies. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45(1):30–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Aslam M et al. Comparison of transvaginal sonography and saline contrast sonohysterography in women with abnormal uterine bleeding: correlation with hysteroscopy and histopathology. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2007;1(1):17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Beemsterboer SN et al. Reproducibility of saline contrast sonohysterography for the detection of intracavitary abnormalities in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(4):445–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pritts EA, Parker WH, Olive DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):1215–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cicinelli E et al. Transabdominal sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysteroscopy in the evaluation of submucous myomas. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85(1):42–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bega G et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic imaging in obstetrics: present and future applications. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20(4):391–408.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jurkovic D. Three-dimensional ultrasound in gynecology: a critical evaluation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19(2):109–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. de Kroon CD et al. The clinical value of 3-dimensional saline infusion sonography in addition to 2-dimensional saline infusion sonography in women with abnormal uterine bleeding: work in progress. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23(11):1433–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Salim R et al. A comparative study of three-dimensional saline infusion sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the classification of submucous fibroids. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):253–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tan N et al. Women seeking second opinion for symptomatic uterine leiomyoma: role of comprehensive fibroid center. J Ther Ultrasound. 2014;2:3. A recently published retrospective study with a multidisciplinary approach to fibroid treatment in a tertiary care facility over 3 years.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Naftalin J, Jurkovic D. The endometrial–myometrial junction: a fresh look at a busy crossing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zawin M et al. High-field MRI and US evaluation of the pelvis in women with leiomyomas. Magn Reson Imaging. 1990;8(4):371–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chan CC et al. Comparison of three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography and diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation in the assessment of tubal patency for the investigation of subfertility. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(9):909–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Widrich T et al. Comparison of saline infusion sonography with office hysteroscopy for the evaluation of the endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(4):1327–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. de Vries LD et al. Comparison of transvaginal sonography, saline infusion sonography, and hysteroscopy in premenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Clin Ultrasound. 2000;28(5):217–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Carlos RC et al. Cost-effectiveness of saline-assisted hysterosonography and office hysteroscopy in the evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding: a decision analysis. Acad Radiol. 2001;8(9):835–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rogerson L et al. A comparison of outpatient hysteroscopy with saline infusion hysterosonography. BJOG. 2002;109(7):800–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dijkhuizen FP et al. Cost-effectiveness of transvaginal sonography and saline infused sonography in the evaluation of menorrhagia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;83(1):45–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Williams CD, Marshburn PB. A prospective study of transvaginal hydrosonography in the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(2):292–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dijkhuizen FP et al. Comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and saline infusion sonography for the detection of intracavitary abnormalities in premenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15(5):372–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Descargues G et al. Which initial tests should be performed to evaluate meno-metrorrhagias? A comparison of hysterography, transvaginal sonohysterography and hysteroscopy. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2001;30(1):59–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Brolmann HA et al. Transvaginal contrast sonography of the uterus in the diagnosis of abnormal uterine blood loss: less hysteroscopies needed. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2003;147(11):502–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. O’Connell LP et al. Triage of abnormal postmenopausal bleeding: a comparison of endometrial biopsy and transvaginal sonohysterography versus fractional curettage with hysteroscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178(5):956–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ryu J-A et al. Comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography with hysterosonography as a screening method in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Korean J Radiol. 2004;5(1):39–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Wongsawaeng W. Transvaginal ultrasonography, sonohysterography and hysteroscopy for intrauterine pathology in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005;88 Suppl 3:S77–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Alborzi S et al. Sonohysterography versus transvaginal sonography for screening of patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;96(1):20–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bonilla-Musoles F et al. Three-dimensional hysterosonography for the study of endometrial tumors: comparison with conventional transvaginal sonography, hysterosalpingography, and hysteroscopy. Gynecol Oncol. 1997;65(2):245–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. La Torre R et al. Transvaginal sonographic evaluation of endometrial polyps: a comparison with two dimensional and three dimensional contrast sonography. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1999;26(3–4):171–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lev-Toaff AS et al. Three-dimensional multiplanar sonohysterography: comparison with conventional two-dimensional sonohysterography and X-ray hysterosalpingography. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20(4):295–306.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ayida G et al. Contrast sonography for uterine cavity assessment: a comparison of conventional two-dimensional with three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound; a pilot study. Fertil Steril. 1996;66(5):848–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Weinraub Z et al. Three-dimensional saline contrast hysterosonography and surface rendering of uterine cavity pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996;8(4):277–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ueda H et al. Unusual appearances of uterine leiomyomas: MR imaging findings and their histopathologic backgrounds 1. Radiographics. 1999;19(suppl1):S131–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Roche O et al. Radiological appearances of gynaecological emergencies. Insights Imaging. 2012;3(3):265–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim JC, Kim SS, Park JY. “Bridging vascular sign” in the MR diagnosis of exophytic uterine leiomyoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24(1):57–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Livermore JA, Adusumilli S. MRI of benign uterine conditions. Appl Radiol. 2007;36(9):8.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ascher SM et al. Adenomyosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and transvaginal sonography. Radiology. 1994;190(3):803–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Byun, J.Y., et al. Diffuse and focal adenomyosis: MR imaging findings. Radiographics, 1999. 19 Spec No: p. S161–70.

  56. American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. Advancing minimally invasive gynecology, W., AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of submucous leiomyomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(2):152–71. Systematic review of the evidence with clear practice guidelines for management of submucous myomas.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lasmar RB et al. Prevalence of hysteroscopic findings and histologic diagnoses in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1803–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Dudiak CM et al. Uterine leiomyomas in the infertile patient: preoperative localization with MR imaging versus US and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 1988;167(3):627–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. RCR, R. Clinical recommendation on the use of uterine artery embolisation (UAE) in the mangement of fibroid uterus. 2013; Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/23-12-2013_rcog_rcr_uae.pdf.

  60. Dewan KAAA, Hefeda MM, ElKholy DGE. Septate or bicornuate uterus: accuracy of three-dimensional trans-vaginal ultrasonography and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2014;45(3):987–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kiyokawa K et al. Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo‐contrast sonography (3D‐HyCoSy) as an outpatient procedure to assess infertile women: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16(7):648–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Perisinakis K et al. Radiogenic risks from hysterosalpingography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(7):1522–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Taylor E, Gomel V. The uterus and fertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(1):1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ascher SM, Silverman PM. Applications of computed tomography in gynecologic diseases. Urol Radiol. 1991;13(1):16–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Wamsteker K, Emanuel MH, de Kruif JH. Transcervical hysteroscopic resection of submucous fibroids for abnormal uterine bleeding: results regarding the degree of intramural extension. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82(5):736–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Lasmar RB et al. Submucous myomas: a new presurgical classification to evaluate the viability of hysteroscopic surgical treatment—preliminary report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(4):308–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Munro MG et al. The FIGO classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2204–8. 2208 e1–3. The most recent and practical classification of uterine leiomyoma currently used.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hricak H et al. MR imaging in the evaluation of benign uterine masses: value of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced T1-weighted images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158(5):1043–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Murase E et al. Uterine leiomyomas: histopathologic features, MR imaging findings, differential diagnosis, and treatment. Radiographics. 1999;19(5):1179–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Dueholm M, Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(6):505–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Bromley B, Shipp TD, Benacerraf B. Adenomyosis: sonographic findings and diagnostic accuracy. J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19(8):529–34. quiz 535–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Atri M et al. Adenomyosis: US features with histologic correlation in an in-vitro study. Radiology. 2000;215(3):783–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Ahmed A et al. Comparison of 2-, 3D and Doppler ultrasound with histological findings in adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:S82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Kepkep K et al. Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30(3):341–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Munro MG. Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. Cambridge: Cambridge Medical Press; 2010.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal Medical Services, Amman, Jordan

    Bassam Nusair & Mohammed Al-Gudah

  2. Obstetrics and Gynecology, Frimley Park Hospital, Surrey, UK

    Rohan Chodankar

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Ibrahim A. Abdelazim

  4. Ahmadi Hospital, Kuwait Oil Company (KOC), Ahmadi, Kuwait

    Ibrahim A. Abdelazim

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ahmadi Hospital, Kuwait Oil Company (KOC), Ahmadi, Kuwait

    Mohannad Abu Faza

Authors
  1. Bassam Nusair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed Al-Gudah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rohan Chodankar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ibrahim A. Abdelazim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohannad Abu Faza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bassam Nusair.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Bassam Nusair, Mohammed Al-Gudah, Rohan Chodankar, Ibrahim A. Abdelazim, and Mohannad Abu Faza declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

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

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Uterine Fibroids

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nusair, B., Al-Gudah, M., Chodankar, R. et al. Uterine Fibroid Mapping. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 5, 73–80 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0154-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0154-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation