Advertisement

Diseases of the Female Pelvis

  • C. M. C. Tempany
Conference paper
Part of the Syllabus book series (SYLLABUS)

Abstract

There are several imaging modalities used in the female pelvis; these are ultrasound followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT). This seminar will primarily focus on the role of MRI in correlation to other imaging modalities. MRI of the female pelvis has become a useful and commonly used imaging modality. This technique offers not only multiplanar capability but also inherent tissue contrast and tissue characterization. These advantages, along with relative ease of the study, its noninvasiveness and reproducibility, have enhanced the growth of MRI as a useful diagnostic imaging modality in the female pelvis.

Keywords

Junctional Zone Female Pelvis Mullerian Duct Rudimentary Horn Uterine Anomaly 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Buttram VC, Gibbons WE (1979) Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fert Steril 32:40–46Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buttram VC (1983) Mullerian anomalies and their management. Fert Steril 40:159–163Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olson M, Posniak HV, Tempany C, Dudiak C (1992) MR imaging of the female pelvic region. Radiographics 12:445–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doule MB, et al. (1992) Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 183:795–800PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tempany CMC (1995) Normal magnetic resonance imaging anatomy. In: Tempany C (ed) MR and imaging of the female pelvis. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 36–46Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fielding JA, Morton R (1995) Congenital and pediatric disorders of mullerian and genitourinary systems. In: Tempany (ed) MR and imaging of the female pelvis. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 75–104Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamashita Y, Torashima M, Takahashi M, Tanaka N, Katabuchi H, Miyazaki K, Ito M, Okamura H (1993) Hyperintense uterine leiomyoma at T2-weighted MR imaging: differentiation with dynamic enhanced MR imaging and clinical implications. Radiology 189:721–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tempany CM, Yousuf N (1995) Benign diseases of the uterus. In: Tempanyc (ed) MR and imaging of the female pelvis. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 131–154Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hricak H, Powell CB, Yu KK, Washington E, et al. (1996) Invasive cervical carcinoma: Role of MR imaging in pretreatment work-up: Cost minimization and diagnostic efficacy analysis. Radiology 198:403–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamashita Y, Takahashi M, Sawada T, Miyazaki K, Okamura H (1992) Carcinoma of the cervix: dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 82:643–648Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yamashita Y, Harada M, Sawada T, et al. (1993) Normal uterus and FIGO stage I endometrial carcinoma: Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 186:495–501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stevens SK, Hricak H, Stern JL (1991) Ovarian lesions: Detection and characterization with gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 181:481–488PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. M. C. Tempany
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations