Skip to main content

Radio-Imaging for Benign Uterine Disease

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Hysterectomy

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, Bazot M. Gynecological pelvic infection: what is the role of imaging? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012;93:491–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pano B, Sebastia C, Bunesch L, et al. Pathways of lymphatic spread in male urogenital pelvic malignancies. Radiographics. 2011;31:135–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Horton KM, Sheth S, Corl F, et al. Multidetector row CT: principles and clinical applications. Crit Rev Comput Tomogr. 2002;43:143–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Alt C, Gebauer G. Uterus. In: Hallscheidt P, Haferkamp A, editors. Urogenitale Bildgebung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 232–301.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schindler A. Epidemiologie, Pathogenese und Diagnostik der Endometriose. Journal für Fertilität und Reproduktion. 2007;17:22–7.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kinkel K, Frei KA, Balleyguier C, et al. Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:285–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Radeleff B. Ovarien. In: Hallscheidt P, Haferkamp A, editors. Urogenitale Bildgebung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 303–46.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. CG R. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis. Fundamentals of body MRI. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. p. 261–368.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300:1311–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Boyadzhyan L, Raman SS, Raz S. Role of static and dynamic MR imaging in surgical pelvic floor dysfunction. Radiographics. 2008;28:949–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Harris TA, Bent AE. Genital prolapse with and without urinary incontinence. J Reprod Med. 1990;35:792–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Rush CB, Entman SS. Pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Med Clin North Am. 1995;79:1473–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Alt CD, Brocker KA, Lenz F, et al. MRI findings before and after prolapse surgery. Acta Radiol. 2014;55:495–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Altringer WE, Saclarides TJ, Dominguez JM, et al. Four-contrast defecography: pelvic "floor-oscopy". Dis Colon rectum. 1995;38:695–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hock D, Lombard R, Jehaes C, et al. Colpocystodefecography. Dis Colon rectum. 1993;36:1015–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hornback JA, et al. Pelvic prolapse: assessment with evacuation proctography (defecography). Radiology. 1992;184:547–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Céline D. Alt-Radke MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Alt-Radke, C.D. (2018). Radio-Imaging for Benign Uterine Disease. In: Alkatout, I., Mettler, L. (eds) Hysterectomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22496-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22497-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics