Obstetrics & Gynecology Email Alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Obstetrics & Gynecology 1989;74:844-847
© 1989 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by FEDELE, L.
Right arrow Articles by CANDIANI, G. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by FEDELE, L.
Right arrow Articles by CANDIANI, G. B.

Magnetic Resonance Evaluation of Double Uteri

LUIGI FEDELE, MD, MILENA DORTA, MD, DIANA BRIOSCHI, MD, CARLO MASSARI, MD and GIOVANNI BATTISTA CANDIANI, MD

From the 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

Abstract

A total of 18 infertile patients with hysterosalpingographic diagnosis of bifid uterus underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent laparoscopy or laparotomy to evaluate the capability of MRI to differentiate among the various classes of the malformation. Magnetic resonance imaging identified both bicornuate uteri correctly, both didelphic uteri, nine of the 12 partial septate uteri, and both complete septate uteri. The method demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 78.6% in demonstrating cervical prolongation of the spur. Compared with laparoscopy, MRI is less expensive and less invasive, and can also be performed in patients with extensive adhesions. However, it has the disadvantage of not providing information on tubal conditions or on the presence of minimal and mild endometriosis.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
S. H. Saravelos, K. A. Cocksedge, and T.-C. Li
Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal
Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2008; 14(5): 415 - 429.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
T. D. Deutch and A. Z. Abuhamad
The Role of 3-Dimensional Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Mullerian Duct Anomalies: A Review of the Literature
J. Ultrasound Med., March 1, 2008; 27(3): 413 - 423.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
G. C. Mueller, H. K. Hussain, Y. R. Smith, E. H. Quint, R. C. Carlos, T. D. Johnson, and J. O. DeLancey
Mullerian Duct Anomalies: Comparison of MRI Diagnosis and Clinical Diagnosis
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2007; 189(6): 1294 - 1302.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
R. N. Troiano and S. M. McCarthy
Mullerian Duct Anomalies: Imaging and Clinical Issues
Radiology, October 1, 2004; 233(1): 19 - 34.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
S. N. Saleem
MR Imaging Diagnosis of Uterovaginal Anomalies: Current State of the Art
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2003; (2003) 13.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
A. F. Hundley, J. R. Fielding, and L. Hoyte
Double Cervix and Vagina With Septate Uterus: An Uncommon Mullerian Malformation
Obstet. Gynecol., November 1, 2001; 98(5): 982 - 985.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.