Radio-Imaging for Benign Uterine Disease

In: Hysterectomy · 2017 · pp. 95–108 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_6 · W2755188935
book-chapter OA: closed CC0
Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View at publisher
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-13

Magnetic resonance imaging offers superior soft tissue contrast and no radiation for evaluating benign uterine disease, while computed tomography is indicated for acute pain or incidental pelvic evaluation.

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, 2026-06-13 · read from full text

This chapter reviews imaging strategies for benign uterine disease, emphasizing that clinical examination and ultrasound are usually sufficient and that cross-sectional imaging is considered when findings are indeterminate. It compares MRI and CT, stating that MRI provides high-resolution, excellent soft-tissue contrast of the entire female pelvis without radiation and can often reach diagnoses or exclude differential diagnoses even without intravenous contrast, but it cannot be used in patients with pacemakers or non–MRI-safe implants. CT is described as having lower soft-tissue contrast and notable radiation exposure, with a more specific role in acute abdominal pain and possible assessment of pelvic organs in the venous phase if a body CT is obtained for other reasons. This paper is centrally about imaging benign uterine disease and does not focus on endometriosis or adenomyosis, though it includes endometriosis and adenomyosis imaging references within its broader uterine-imaging context.

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

Full text 9,213 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Clinical examination and ultrasound are mostly sufficient for diagnosis of gynecological diseases. In case of indeterminate findings, further cross sectional imaging is reasonable. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a perfect tool for the evaluation of the morphology of the entire female pelvis due to its high-resolution images combined with an excellent soft tissue contrast and without the application of radiation, and should be given preference for imaging of the female pelvic organs. Even without intravenous contrast media, many diagnoses could be made or even differential diagnoses could be excluded. However, patients with pacemakers, or non-MRI-safe implants, cannot be examined with MRI due to its magnetic field strength. Computed Tomography (CT) has a lower soft tissue contrast than MRI and gives notable radiation exposure to the patient. For benign gynecological diseases, CT may be indicated for the evaluation of acute abdominal pain. If a body CT is performed for another indication, the pelvic organs may be evaluated in venous phase. Access this chapter Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout Purchases are for personal use only Similar content being viewed by others

References

Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T, et al. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1102–10. Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM, et al. Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1565–74. Kirchhoff S. MR Vagina, Uterus, Adnexe. In: Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Boss A, Merkle E, editors. Praxisbuch MRT Abdomen und Becken. Berlin: Springer; 2012. p. 181–94. Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, Bazot M. Gynecological pelvic infection: what is the role of imaging? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012;93:491–9. Brocker KA, Alt CD, Eichbaum M, et al. Imaging of female pelvic malignancies regarding MRI, CT, and PET/CT: part 1. Strahlenther Onkol. 2011;187:611–8. Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, et al. The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology. 2013;266:717–40. Pano B, Sebastia C, Bunesch L, et al. Pathways of lymphatic spread in male urogenital pelvic malignancies. Radiographics. 2011;31:135–60. Scheidler J. Bildgebende Diagnostik der inneren weiblichen Genitalorgane – Adnexe. In: Adams S, Nicolas V, Freyschmidt J, editors. Urogenitaltrakt, Retroperitoneum, Mamma. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2004. p. 221–40. Horton KM, Sheth S, Corl F, et al. Multidetector row CT: principles and clinical applications. Crit Rev Comput Tomogr. 2002;43:143–81. Kröncke T. Benign Uterine Lesions. In: Hamm B, Forstner R, editors. MRI and CT of the Female Pelvis. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer; 2007. p. 61–100. Alt C, Gebauer G. Uterus. In: Hallscheidt P, Haferkamp A, editors. Urogenitale Bildgebung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 232–301. Bazot M, Darai E, Hourani R, et al. Deep pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease. Radiology. 2004;232:379–89. Del Frate C, Girometti R, Pittino M, et al. Deep retroperitoneal pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging appearance with laparoscopic correlation. Radiographics. 2006;26:1705–18. Schindler A. Epidemiologie, Pathogenese und Diagnostik der Endometriose. Journal für Fertilität und Reproduktion. 2007;17:22–7. Bazot M, Gasner A, Ballester M, et al. Value of thin-section oblique axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance images to assess uterosacral ligament endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:346–53. Kinkel K, Frei KA, Balleyguier C, et al. Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:285–98. Radeleff B. Ovarien. In: Hallscheidt P, Haferkamp A, editors. Urogenitale Bildgebung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 303–46. Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427–33. Moghadam R, Lathi RB, Shahmohamady B, et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating between leiomyoma and adenomyosis. JSLS. 2006;10:216–9. CG R. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis. Fundamentals of body MRI. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. p. 261–368. Walker GJ, Gunasekera P. Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:127–35. DeLancey JO, Kearney R, Chou Q, et al. The appearance of levator ani muscle abnormalities in magnetic resonance images after vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:46–53. Lanzarone V, Dietz HP. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the levator hiatus in late pregnancy and associations with delivery outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;47:176–80. Mant J, Painter R, Vessey M. Epidemiology of genital prolapse: observations from the Oxford Family Planning Association Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:579–85. Rortveit G, Subak LL, Thom DH, et al. Urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in a population-based, racially diverse cohort: prevalence and risk factors. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16:278–83. Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300:1311–6. Boyadzhyan L, Raman SS, Raz S. Role of static and dynamic MR imaging in surgical pelvic floor dysfunction. Radiographics. 2008;28:949–67. Harris TA, Bent AE. Genital prolapse with and without urinary incontinence. J Reprod Med. 1990;35:792–8. Petros P. The female pelvic floor : function, dysfunction, and management according to the integral theory:subtitle. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. Rush CB, Entman SS. Pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Med Clin North Am. 1995;79:1473–9. Alt CD, Hampel F, Hallscheidt P, et al. 3 T MRI-based measurements for the integrity of the female pelvic floor in 25 healthy nulliparous women. NeurourolUrodyn. 2014;35(2):218–23. El Sayed RF, El Mashed S, Farag A, et al. Pelvic floor dysfunction: assessment with combined analysis of static and dynamic MR imaging findings. Radiology. 2008;248:518–30. Hoyte L, Schierlitz L, Zou K, et al. Two- and 3-dimensional MRI comparison of levator ani structure, volume, and integrity in women with stress incontinence and prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:11–9. Tunn R, Goldammer K, Neymeyer J, et al. MRI morphology of the levator ani muscle, endopelvic fascia, and urethra in women with stress urinary incontinence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;126:239–45. El Sayed RF, Alt CD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction - joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Eur Radiol. 2016. [Epub ahead of print] DOI:10.1007/s00330-016-4471-7. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7. Alt CD, Brocker KA, Lenz F, et al. MRI findings before and after prolapse surgery. Acta Radiol. 2014;55:495–504. Goodrich MA, Webb MJ, King BF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor relaxation: dynamic analysis and evaluation of patients before and after surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82:883–91. Altringer WE, Saclarides TJ, Dominguez JM, et al. Four-contrast defecography: pelvic "floor-oscopy". Dis Colon rectum. 1995;38:695–9. Broekhuis SR, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, et al. A systematic review of clinical studies on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: the use of reference lines and anatomical landmarks. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:721–9. Hock D, Lombard R, Jehaes C, et al. Colpocystodefecography. Dis Colon rectum. 1993;36:1015–21. Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hornback JA, et al. Pelvic prolapse: assessment with evacuation proctography (defecography). Radiology. 1992;184:547–51. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6. Rentsch M, Paetzel C, Lenhart M, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging defecography: a diagnostic alternative in the assessment of pelvic floor disorders in proctology. Dis Colon rectum. 2001;44:999–1007. Alt C, Lenz F, Haferkamp A. Beckenbodendysfunktion der Frau. In: Hallscheidt P, Haferkamp A, editors. Urogenitale Bildgebung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 399–441. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Editor information Editors and Affiliations Rights and permissions Copyright information © 2018 Springer International Publishing Switzerland About this chapter Cite this chapter Alt-Radke, C.D. (2018). Radio-Imaging for Benign Uterine Disease. In: Alkatout, I., Mettler, L. (eds) Hysterectomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_6 Download citation DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_6 Published: Publisher Name: Springer, Cham Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22496-1 Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22497-8 eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

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

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 (43)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK