Advertisement

Normal Radiological Anatomy

  • Patricia Carrascosa
  • Carlos Capuñay
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
Chapter

Abstract

In the 6th week of the embryo development the morphological sexual characteristics of both sexes start to establish themselves. In every embryo, on both sides of the middle line, the following structures are present: (i) a genital septum; (ii) a Wolf mesenteric duct, beside the genital septum; (iii) a paramesonephric Müllerian duct that consists of three segments: (a) a vertical cranial sector beside the Wolf duct; (b) a middle horizontal sector that passes in front of the Wolf duct; and (c) an inferior or caudal sector. According to the established sex at the moment of fertilization, the absence of the Y chromosome clears the way for the differentiation in the female sense, establishing the retraction of the Wolf ducts, the development of the structures derived of the Müller paramesonephric ducts and the formation of the ovaries.

Keywords

Fallopian Tube Uterine Cavity Cervical Canal Cornual Region Endometrial Cavity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Byrne J, Nussbaum-Blask A, Taylor WS, et al. Prevalence of müllerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet. 2000;94:9–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stampe Sorensen S. Estimated prevalence of mullerian duct anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1988;67:441–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sarto GE, Simpson JL. Abnormalities of the Mullerian and Wolffian duct systems. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1978;14:37–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233:19–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shulman LP. Müllerian anomalies. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;51:214–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin PC, Bhatnagar KP, Nettleton GS, et al. Female genital anomalies affecting reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:899–915.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rohen JW. Topographische anatomie. Stuttgart: Schattaer; 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Toaff ME, Lev-Toaff AS, Toaff R. Communicating uteri: review and classification with introduction of two previously unreported types. Fertil Steril. 1984;41:661–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:415–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carrascosa PM, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30:643–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, et al. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathological findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):131–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen MYM, Zagoria RJ. Normal radiographic anatomy. In: Ott DJ, Fayez JA, Zagoria RJ, editors. Hysterosalpingography: a text and atlas. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1998. p. 29–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Carrascosa
    • 1
  • Carlos Capuñay
    • 1
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
    • 2
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
    • 3
  1. 1.Diagnóstico MaipúBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.CEGYRBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations