Hysterectomy pp 95-108 | Cite as

Radio-Imaging for Benign Uterine Disease

  • Céline D. Alt-RadkeEmail author


Clinical examination and ultrasound are mostly sufficient for diagnosis of gynecological diseases. In case of indeterminate findings, further cross sectional imaging is reasonable. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a perfect tool for the evaluation of the morphology of the entire female pelvis due to its high-resolution images combined with an excellent soft tissue contrast and without the application of radiation, and should be given preference for imaging of the female pelvic organs. Even without intravenous contrast media, many diagnoses could be made or even differential diagnoses could be excluded. However, patients with pacemakers, or non-MRI-safe implants, cannot be examined with MRI due to its magnetic field strength. Computed Tomography (CT) has a lower soft tissue contrast than MRI and gives notable radiation exposure to the patient. For benign gynecological diseases, CT may be indicated for the evaluation of acute abdominal pain. If a body CT is performed for another indication, the pelvic organs may be evaluated in venous phase.


Leiomyoma Endometriosis Pelvic organ prolapse MRI 


  1. 1.
    Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T, et al. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1102–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM, et al. Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1565–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirchhoff S. MR Vagina, Uterus, Adnexe. In: Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Boss A, Merkle E, editors. Praxisbuch MRT Abdomen und Becken. Berlin: Springer; 2012. p. 181–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, Bazot M. Gynecological pelvic infection: what is the role of imaging? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012;93:491–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brocker KA, Alt CD, Eichbaum M, et al. Imaging of female pelvic malignancies regarding MRI, CT, and PET/CT: part 1. Strahlenther Onkol. 2011;187:611–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, et al. The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology. 2013;266:717–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pano B, Sebastia C, Bunesch L, et al. Pathways of lymphatic spread in male urogenital pelvic malignancies. Radiographics. 2011;31:135–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scheidler J. Bildgebende Diagnostik der inneren weiblichen Genitalorgane – Adnexe. In: Adams S, Nicolas V, Freyschmidt J, editors. Urogenitaltrakt, Retroperitoneum, Mamma. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2004. p. 221–40.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horton KM, Sheth S, Corl F, et al. Multidetector row CT: principles and clinical applications. Crit Rev Comput Tomogr. 2002;43:143–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kröncke T. Benign Uterine Lesions. In: Hamm B, Forstner R, editors. MRI and CT of the Female Pelvis. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer; 2007. p. 61–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alt C, Gebauer G. Uterus. In: Hallscheidt P, Haferkamp A, editors. Urogenitale Bildgebung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 232–301.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bazot M, Darai E, Hourani R, et al. Deep pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease. Radiology. 2004;232:379–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Del Frate C, Girometti R, Pittino M, et al. Deep retroperitoneal pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging appearance with laparoscopic correlation. Radiographics. 2006;26:1705–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schindler A. Epidemiologie, Pathogenese und Diagnostik der Endometriose. Journal für Fertilität und Reproduktion. 2007;17:22–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bazot M, Gasner A, Ballester M, et al. Value of thin-section oblique axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance images to assess uterosacral ligament endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:346–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kinkel K, Frei KA, Balleyguier C, et al. Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:285–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radeleff B. Ovarien. In: Hallscheidt P, Haferkamp A, editors. Urogenitale Bildgebung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 303–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moghadam R, Lathi RB, Shahmohamady B, et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating between leiomyoma and adenomyosis. JSLS. 2006;10:216–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    CG R. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis. Fundamentals of body MRI. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. p. 261–368.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walker GJ, Gunasekera P. Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:127–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLancey JO, Kearney R, Chou Q, et al. The appearance of levator ani muscle abnormalities in magnetic resonance images after vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:46–53.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lanzarone V, Dietz HP. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the levator hiatus in late pregnancy and associations with delivery outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;47:176–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mant J, Painter R, Vessey M. Epidemiology of genital prolapse: observations from the Oxford Family Planning Association Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:579–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rortveit G, Subak LL, Thom DH, et al. Urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in a population-based, racially diverse cohort: prevalence and risk factors. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16:278–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300:1311–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boyadzhyan L, Raman SS, Raz S. Role of static and dynamic MR imaging in surgical pelvic floor dysfunction. Radiographics. 2008;28:949–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harris TA, Bent AE. Genital prolapse with and without urinary incontinence. J Reprod Med. 1990;35:792–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petros P. The female pelvic floor : function, dysfunction, and management according to the integral theory:subtitle. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rush CB, Entman SS. Pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Med Clin North Am. 1995;79:1473–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alt CD, Hampel F, Hallscheidt P, et al. 3 T MRI-based measurements for the integrity of the female pelvic floor in 25 healthy nulliparous women. NeurourolUrodyn. 2014;35(2):218–23.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    El Sayed RF, El Mashed S, Farag A, et al. Pelvic floor dysfunction: assessment with combined analysis of static and dynamic MR imaging findings. Radiology. 2008;248:518–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hoyte L, Schierlitz L, Zou K, et al. Two- and 3-dimensional MRI comparison of levator ani structure, volume, and integrity in women with stress incontinence and prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:11–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tunn R, Goldammer K, Neymeyer J, et al. MRI morphology of the levator ani muscle, endopelvic fascia, and urethra in women with stress urinary incontinence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;126:239–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    El Sayed RF, Alt CD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction - joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Eur Radiol. 2016. [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4471-7.
  36. 36.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Alt CD, Brocker KA, Lenz F, et al. MRI findings before and after prolapse surgery. Acta Radiol. 2014;55:495–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goodrich MA, Webb MJ, King BF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor relaxation: dynamic analysis and evaluation of patients before and after surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82:883–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Altringer WE, Saclarides TJ, Dominguez JM, et al. Four-contrast defecography: pelvic "floor-oscopy". Dis Colon rectum. 1995;38:695–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Broekhuis SR, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, et al. A systematic review of clinical studies on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: the use of reference lines and anatomical landmarks. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:721–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hock D, Lombard R, Jehaes C, et al. Colpocystodefecography. Dis Colon rectum. 1993;36:1015–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hornback JA, et al. Pelvic prolapse: assessment with evacuation proctography (defecography). Radiology. 1992;184:547–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rentsch M, Paetzel C, Lenhart M, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging defecography: a diagnostic alternative in the assessment of pelvic floor disorders in proctology. Dis Colon rectum. 2001;44:999–1007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Alt C, Lenz F, Haferkamp A. Beckenbodendysfunktion der Frau. In: Hallscheidt P, Haferkamp A, editors. Urogenitale Bildgebung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 399–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyMedical Faculty, University DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations