{"paper_id":"f2b21ddd-0a0d-4589-bbeb-26bfc7177ab5","body_text":"Abstract\nMüllerian duct anomalies (MDAs) represent a wide spectrum of developmental abnormalities related to various gynecologic and obstetric complications, including primary amenorrhea, infertility, and endometriosis. The use of diverse imaging modalities, in conjunction with clinical information, provide important clues to the diagnosis of MDAs. Diagnostic imaging work-up for MDAs often begins with hysterosalpingography (HSG) and/or ultrasonography (US). Although HSG and/or US may suffice to detect the presence of a uterine abnormality, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is generally needed to classify the abnormality into a specific MDA category. MR imaging has been gaining in popularity for use in evaluating MDAs, by virtue of its noninvasiveness, lack of ionizing radiation, and capability for multiplanar imaging and soft tissue characterization. Abnormalities in the external uterine fundal contour are readily recognized with MR imaging, allowing for clear differentiation between a fusion anomaly, such as a uterus didelphys or a bicornuate uterus, and a resorption anomaly, such as a septate uterus. Furthermore, MR imaging enables clear depiction of a rudimentary uterine horn in a unicornuate uterus. Accurate differential diagnosis of MDAs on the basis of their characteristic MR imaging findings is crucial, because the rates of gynecologic and obstetric complications vary considerably among MDAs. The diagnostic accuracy may be enhanced by adopting a systematic approach to MR imaging-based differential diagnosis.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nBehr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A (2012) Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics 32:E233–E250\nTroiano RN, McCarthy SM (2004) Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233:19–34\nDevi Wold AS, Pham N, Arici A (2006) Anatomic factors in recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med 24:25–32\nLi S, Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Hricak H (2000) Association of renal agenesis and Müllerian duct anomalies. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24:829–834\nOppelt P, Renner SP, Kellermann A, et al. (2006) Clinical aspects of Mayer–Rokitansky–Kuester–Hauser syndrome: recommendations for clinical diagnosis and staging. Hum Reprod 21:792–797\nPittock ST, Babovic-Vuksanovic D, Lteif A (2005) Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser anomaly and its associated malformations. Am J Med Genet A 135:314–316\nGell JS (2003) Müllerian anomalies. Semin Reprod Med 21:375–388\nKimberley N, Hutson JM, Southwell BR, Grover SR (2012) Vaginal agenesis, the hymen, and associated anomalies. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 25:54–58\nRobbins JB, Parry JP, Guite KM, et al. (2012) MRI of pregnancy-related issues: Müllerian duct anomalies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:302–310\nMarcal L, Nothaft MA, Coelho F, Volpato R, Iyer R (2011) Müllerian duct anomalies: MR imaging. Abdom Imaging 36:756–764\nButtram VC Jr, Gibbons WE (1979) Müllerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (An analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 32:40–46\nButtram VC, Gomel V, Siegler A, et al. (1988) The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49:944–955\nOlpin JD, Heilbrun M (2009) Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Clin Obstet Gynecol 52:40–56\nGiusti S, Fruzzetti E, Perini D, et al. (2011) Diagnosis of a variant of Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome: useful MRI findings. Abdom Imaging 36:753–755\nLamarca M, Navarro R, Ballesteros ME, et al. (2009) Leiomyomas in both uterine remnants in a woman with the Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 91(931):e13–e15\nPompili G, Munari A, Franceschelli G, et al. (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Radiol Med 114:811–826\nReinhold C, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al. (1997) Primary amenorrhea: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology 203:383–390\nZhou JH, Sun J, Yang CB, et al. (2010) Long-term outcomes of transvestibular vaginoplasty with pelvic peritoneum in 182 patients with Rokitansky’s syndrome. Fertil Steril 94:2281–2285\nMorcel K, Camborieux L, Programme de Recherches sur les Aplasies Müllériennes, Guerrier D (2007) Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser (MRKH) syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2:13–21\nJurkiewicz B, Matuszewski L, Cislak R, Rybak D (2006) Rokitansky–Kustner–Hauser syndrome—a case report. Eur J Pediatr Surg 16:135–137\nYoo RE, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH (2013) Magnetic resonance evaluation of Müllerian remnants in Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Korean J Radiol 14:233–239\nFiaschetti V, Taglieri A, Gisone V, Coco I, Simonetti G (2012) Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging. Role of imaging to identify and evaluate the uncommon variation in development of the female genital tract. J Radiol Case Rep 6:17–24\nJunqueira BL, Allen LM, Spitzer RF, et al. (2009) Müllerian duct anomalies and mimics in children and adolescents: correlative intraoperative assessment with clinical imaging. Radiographics 29:1085–1103\nOlive DL, Henderson DY (1987) Endometriosis and Müllerian anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 69(3 Pt 1):412–415\nUgur M, Turan C, Mungan T, et al. (1995) Endometriosis in association with Müllerian anomalies. Gynecol Obstet Invest 40:261–264\nJayasinghe Y, Rane A, Stalewski H, Grover S (2005) The presentation and early diagnosis of the rudimentary uterine horn. Obstet Gynecol 105:1456–1467\nCarrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, et al. (1990) Müllerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 176:715–720\nPellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH (1992) Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 183:795–800\nWang B, Zhou JH, Jin HM (2011) Torsion of a rudimentary uterine horn at 22 weeks of gestation. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 37:919–920\nSarto GE, Simpson JL (1978) Abnormalities of the Müllerian and Wolffian duct systems. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 14(6C):37–54\nDel Vescovo R, Battisti S, Di Paola V, et al. (2012) Herlyn–Werner–Wunderlich syndrome: MRI findings, radiological guide (two cases and literature review), and differential diagnosis. BMC Med Imaging 12:4\nHan BH, Park SB, Lee YJ, Lee KS, Lee YK (2013) Uterus didelphys with blind hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis (Herlyn–Werner–Wunderlich syndrome) suspected on the presence of hydrocolpos on prenatal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 41:380–382\nFedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Massari C, Candiani GB (1989) Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol 74:844–847\nCandiani GB, Fedele L, Parazzini F, Zamberletti D (1990) Reproductive prognosis after abdominal metroplasty in bicornuate or septate uterus: a life table analysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 97:613–617\nRaga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG (1996) Congenital Müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril 65:523–528\nChan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, et al. (2011) Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:371–382\nPropst AM, Hill JA 3rd (2000) Anatomic factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med 18:341–350\nFedele L, Bianchi S (1995) Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 22:473–489\nFayez JA (1986) Comparison between abdominal and hysteroscopic metroplasty. Obstet Gynecol 68:399–403\nRaga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, et al. (1997) Reproductive impact of congenital Müllerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 12:2277–2281\nHeinonen PK, Saarikoski S, Pystynen P (1982) Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies. An evaluation of 182 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 61:157–162\nKupesic S, Kurjak A (1998) Septate uterus: detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 17:631–636\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, Harris AC, Chang SD (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\nNakhal RS, Hall-Craggs M, Freeman A, et al. (2013) Evaluation of retained testes in adolescent girls and women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Radiology 268:153–160\nHughes IA, Deeb A (2006) Androgen resistance. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 20:577–598\nCools M, Drop SL, Wolffenbuttel KP, Oosterhuis JW, Looijenga LH (2006) Germ cell tumors in the intersex gonad: old paths, new directions, moving frontiers. Endocr Rev 27:468–484\nDeans R, Creighton SM, Liao LM, Conway GS (2012) Timing of gonadectomy in adult women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS): patient preferences and clinical evidence. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 76:894–898\nBurgis J (2001) Obstructive Müllerian anomalies: case report, diagnosis, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:338–344\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nElectronic supplementary material\nBelow is the link to the electronic supplementary material.\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nYoo, RE., Cho, J.Y., Kim, S.Y. et al. A systematic approach to the magnetic resonance imaging-based differential diagnosis of congenital Müllerian duct anomalies and their mimics. Abdom Imaging 40, 192–206 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0195-9\nPublished:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0195-9","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}