{"paper_id":"bfa87c10-49ab-498a-a419-3d768a6f608f","body_text":"Abstract\nEndovaginal ultrasonography (EVUS) remains the procedure of choice for initial evaluation of benign diseases of the female genital tract. When EVUS findings are indeterminate, further evaluation is typically performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to its excellent soft tissue differentiation, multiplanar capabilities, and absence of ionizing radiation. MRI is thus well suited for imaging women of reproductive age. It is used as a problem-solving tool in benign uterine disease — for example, uterine malformations, and adenomyosis, and to select appropriate candidates for therapies such as myomectomy and uterine artery embolization. It is also increasingly used in the pregnant patient for both fetal and maternal indications. The role of computed tomography (CT) is limited in the evaluation of benign disease of the female pelvis and is usually employed in an emergency situation, such as in an acute abdomen caused by ovarian torsion or pelvic inflammatory disease.\nAccess this chapter\nTax calculation will be finalised at checkout\nPurchases are for personal use only\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nSmith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Feldstein VA et al (1998) Endovaginal ultrasound to exclude endometrial cancer and other endometrial abnormalities. JAMA 280:1510–7.\nTroiano RN, McCarthy SM (2004) Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233:19–34.\nBehr SC, Coutier JL, Qayyum A (2012) Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. RadioGraphics 32:1619–1620.\nLi S, Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Hricak H (2000) Association of renal agenesis and müllerian duct anomalies. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24:829–834.\nButtram VC Jr, Gibbons WE (1979) Müllerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (An analysis of 144 cases.) Fertil Steril 32:40–46.\nThe American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions (1988). Fertil Steril 49:944–955.\nMueller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR et al (2007) Müllerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1294–1302.\nJayasinghe Y, Rane A, Stalewski H, Grover S (2005) The presentation and early diagnosis of the rudimentary uterine horn. Obstet Gynecol 105:1456–1467.\nPellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB et al (1992) Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 183:795–800.\nFedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D et al (1989) Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol 74:844–847.\nMiller RJ, Breech LL (2008) Surgical correction of vaginal anomalies. Clin Obstet Gynecol 51:223–236.\nRackow BW, Arici A (2007) Reproductive performance of women with müllerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 19:229–237.\nPropst AM, Hill JA 3rd (2000) Anatomic factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med 18:341–350.\nZreik TG, Troiano RN, Ghoussoub RA et al (1998) Myometrial tissue in uterine septa. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 5:155–160.\nChandler TM, Machan LS, Cooperberg PL et al (2009) Müllerian duct anomalies: from diagnosis to intervention. Br J Radiol 82:1034–1042.\nTulandi T, Arronet GH, McInnes RA (1980) Arcuate and bicornuate uterine anomalies and infertility. Fertil Steril 34:362–364.\nKaufman RH, Adam E, Binder GL, Gerthoffer E (1980) Upper genital tract changes and pregnancy outcome in offspring exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Obstet Gynecol 137:299–308.\nGoldberg JM, Falcone T (1999) Effect of diethylstilbestrol on reproductive function. Fertil Steril 72:1–7.\nSheth S, Hamper UM, Kurman RJ (1993) Thickened endometrium in the postmenopausal woman; sonographic-pathologic coorelation. Radiology 187:135–139.\nGrasel RP, Outwater EK, Siegelman ES et al (2000) Endometrial polyps: MR imaging features and distinction from endometrial carcinoma. Radiology 214:47–52.\nHricak H, Tscholakoff D, Heinrichs L et al (1986) Uterine leiomyomas: correlation of MR histopathologic findings, and symptoms. Radiology 158:385–391.\nCardozo ER, Clark D, Banks NK et al (2012) The estimated annual cost of uterine leiomyomata in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206:21.e1–9.\nJacobson GF, Shaber RE, Armstrong MA, Hung Y-Y (2007) Changes in rates of hysterectomy and uterine conserving procedures for treatment of uterine leiomyoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196:601.e1–6.\nJha RC, Ascher SM, Imaoka I, Spies JB (2000) Symptomatic fibroleiomyomata: MR imaging of the uterus before and after uterine artery embolization. Radiology 217:228–35.\nNikolaidis PN, Siddiqi AH, Carr JC et al (2005) Incidence of nonviable leiomyomas on contrast material enhanced pelvic MR imaging in patients referred for uterine artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:1465–1471.\nKroencke TJ, Scheurig C, Poellinger A et al (2010) Uterine artery embolization for leiomyomas: percentage of infarction predicts clinical outcome. Radiology 255:834–841.\nKitamura Y, Ascher SM, Cooper C et al (2005) Imaging manifestations of complications associated with uterine artery embolization. RadioGraphics 25:S119–32.\nRadeleff B, Eiers M, Bellemann N et al (2010) Expulsion of dominant submucosal fibroids after uterine artery embolization. Eur J Radiol 75:e57–63.\nShah SH, Jagannathan JP, Krajewski K et al (2012) Uterine sarcoma: then and now. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:213–223.\nThomassin-Naggara, Dechoux S, Bonneau C et al (2013) How to differentiate benign from malignant myometrial tumors using MR imaging. Eur Radiol 23:2306–2314.\nReinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM et al (1996) Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 199:151–158.\nTogashi K, Ozasa H, Konishi I et al (1989) Enlarged uterus: differentiation between adenomyosis and leiomyoma with MR imaging. Radiology 171:531–534.\nMark AS, Hricak H, Heinrichs LW et al (1987) Adenomyosis and leiomyoma: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 163:527–529.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nEditor information\nEditors and Affiliations\nRights and permissions\nCopyright information\n© 2014 Springer-Verlag Italia\nAbout this chapter\nCite this chapter\nAscher, S., Reinhold, C. (2014). Benign Diseases of the Uterus. In: Hodler, J., von Schulthess, G.K., Kubik-Huch, R.A., Zollikofer, C.L. (eds) Diseases of the Abdomen and Pelvis 2014–2017. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5659-6_19\nDownload citation\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5659-6_19\nPublisher Name: Springer, Milano\nPrint ISBN: 978-88-470-5658-9\nOnline ISBN: 978-88-470-5659-6\neBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)\nKeywords\nThese 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.","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}