Assessment of pelvic endometriosis: correlation of US and MRI with laparoscopic findings

Giovanni Carbognin, G Carbognin, Girardi V, V Girardi, L Pinali, Lucia Pinali, Pinali L, Ricciarda Raffaelli, R Raffaelli, Bergamini V, Valentino Bergamini, V Bergamini, R Pozzi Mucelli, Roberto Pozzi Mucelli
La Radiologia medica · 2006 · vol. 111(5) , pp. 687–701 · doi:10.1007/s11547-006-0066-8 · PMID:16791463 · W2106602835
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 28 in-corpus citations
Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-14 ⓘ

This study compared ultrasound and MRI findings with laparoscopic endometriosis diagnosis, finding both imaging methods accurate but with differences in detecting specific lesion types.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-14 · read from full text ⓘ

This study evaluated ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosing and locally staging pelvic endometriosis by comparing imaging results with laparoscopic findings in 32 of 36 consecutive women with suspected or clinically diagnosed disease, using US and MRI performed within two weeks before laparoscopy. Laparoscopy identified 143 lesions, while US detected 101 and MRI 92, with both modalities analyzed by lesion location, number, and morphology; the paper reports sensitivities and specificities for location detection (US: 58%/25%, MRI: 56%/50%) and notes similar performance across locations except that rectovaginal septum lesions were better detected by US, while adhesions and cul-de-sac obliteration were more easily detected by MRI. A major limitation explicitly addressed is the reliance on laparoscopy as the gold standard and the restricted inclusion of 32 women who completed the full imaging and laparoscopy timeline. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it directly correlates US and MRI imaging findings with laparoscopic lesion mapping to assess diagnostic accuracy and local staging.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the contribution of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the diagnosis and local staging of endometriosis by comparing results with laparoscopic findings.Materials and methodsWe evaluated 36 consecutive women with suspected or clinically diagnosed endometriosis. Thirty-two out of 36 patients met the following inclusion criteria: transabdominal and endocavitary (US) examination and MR imaging, followed by laparoscopy performed within 2 weeks. US and MR findings were classified based on location, number and morphology (small nodules, large nodules, laminar lesions, cystic lesions, complex lesions, adhesions, cul-de-sac obliteration).ResultsLaparoscopy, considered the gold standard, identified 143 lesions in 32 patients. US detected 101 lesions, and MR detected 92 lesions, which were subsequently divided by morphologic appearance. Sensitivity and specificity of the two imaging techniques in the recognition of the different locations were 58% and 25%, respectively, for US and 56% and 50%, respectively, for MR imaging. Results of the two techniques in the different locations examined were similar, with the exception of lesions in the rectovaginal septum, which were better detected by US, and for adhesions and cul-de-sac obliteration, which were more easily detected by MR.ConclusionsBoth US and MR are accurate in the diagnosis of endometriosis. There are no significant differences in staging of pelvic endometriosis between US and MR. US examination is the primary evaluation in cases of suspected disease and for the rectovaginal septum. MR examination is recommended for correct classification in doubtful cases and in cases of suspected extrapelvic lesions and adhesions.
Full text 2,242 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contribution of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the diagnosis and local staging of endometriosis by comparing results with laparoscopic findings.

Materials

and methods. We evaluated 36 consecutive women with suspected or clinically diagnosed endometriosis. Thirty–two out of 36 patients met the following inclusion criteria: transabdominal and endocavitary (US) examination and MR imaging, followed by laparoscopy performed within 2 weeks. US and MR findings were classified based on location, number and morphology (small nodules, large nodules, laminar lesions, cystic lesions, complex lesions, adhesions, cul–de–sac obliteration). Results. Laparoscopy, considered the gold standard, identified 143 lesions in 32 patients. US detected 101 lesions, and MR detected 92 lesions, which were subsequently divided by morphologic appearance. Sensitivity and specificity of the two imaging techniques in the recognition of the different locations were 58% and 25%, respectively, for US and 56% and 50%, respectively, for MR imaging. Results of the two techniques in the different locations examined were similar, with the exception of lesions in the rectovaginal septum, which were better detected by US, and for adhesions and cul–de–sac obliteration, which were more easily detected by MR. Conclusions. Both US and MR are accurate in the diagnosis of endometriosis. There are no significant differences in staging of pelvic endometriosis between US and MR. US examination is the primary evaluation in cases of suspected disease and for the rectovaginal septum. MR examination is recommended for correct classification in doubtful cases and in cases of suspected extrapelvic lesions and adhesions. Similar content being viewed by others Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Carbognin, G., Girardi, V., Pinali, L. et al. Assessment of pelvic endometriosis: correlation of US and MRI with laparoscopic findings. Radiol med 111, 687–701 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-006-0066-8 Received: Accepted: Published: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-006-0066-8

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Adnexal Diseases Endometriosis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Rectal Diseases Vaginal Diseases Adnexal Diseases Adnexal Diseases Adnexal Diseases Adult Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Humans Laparoscopy Middle Aged Prospective Studies Rectal Diseases Rectal Diseases Rectal Diseases

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (27)

Cited by (28)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-27T06:15:28.040536+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:15:18.313808+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK