Detection of mullerian duct anomalies: diagnostic utility of two dimensional ultrasonography as compared to magnetic resonance imaging
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20164421Keywords:
Infertility, Mullerian duct anomalies, MRI, Uterus, 2D ultrasonographyAbstract
Background: Mullerian duct anomalies (MDAs) are a fascinating group of disorders that have varied clinical presentation from being asymptomatic to primary amenorrhea to inability to reproduce. Correct diagnosis of the condition plays a crucial role in management. Imaging plays a pivotal role in making correct diagnosis. This study aims to find the prevalence of MDAs amongst study population and their relation with infertility and also compares diagnostic utility of pelvic ultrasound with MRI.
Methods: A randomized diagnostic test evaluation study was conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging of a tertiary care teaching hospital over a period of 2 years. The patient first underwent pelvic 2D USG in multiple planes using curvilinear probe of 3MHz to 5 MHz. frequency and then MRI.
Results: Most common MDA in total study sample and in primary infertility group is arcuate uterus while in recurrent abortions group it is unicornuate uterus. Out of total study sample of 75 patients 2D USG detected 18 cases of MDA while MRI detected 22 cases of MDA. So, 2D USG failed to detect 04 cases of MDA in total study population bringing overall sensitivity of 2D USG as 81.8%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 93.4% and accuracy of 94.6%.
Conclusions: 2D USG has a few limitations but in view of relatively simple imaging procedure, ease of availability and cost effectiveness it should be utilized as an initial imaging modality in patients with suspicion of MDAs.
Metrics
References
Ashton D, Amin HK, Richart RM, et al. The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72:28-30.
Byrne J, Nussbaum BA, Taylor WS. Prevalence of mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet. 2000;94:9-12.
Sotirios H. Saravelos KA. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Human reproduction Update. 2008;5:415-29.
Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN. Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1990;176:715-20.
Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D. Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:844-7.
Raga F, Bonilla MF, Blanes J. Congenital mullerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:523-28.
Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital mullerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25:487-92.
Canzone G. 2D-3D USG in diagnosis of Uterine malformations. Donald School J of USG in Obs and Gynae. 2007;1(3):77-9.
Nahum GG. Uterine anomalies. How common are they, and what is their distribution among subtypes? J Reprod Med. 1998;43(10):877-87.
Robbins JB, Parry JP, Guite KM, MRI of Pregnancy-Related Issues: Mullerian Duct Anomalies. AJR. 2012;198:302-10.
Robert NT, McCarthy SM, Mullerian Duct Anomalies: Imaging and Clinical Issues. RSNA, Radiology. 2004;233:19-34.
Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D. Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74(6):844-7.
Speroff L, Glass RH, Kase NG. Development of the mullerian system. In: Mitchell C, ed. Clinical gynecologic endocrinology and infertility. 6th ed. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins. 1998;124.
Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761-71.
Rao K, Pillai NV. Primary amenorrhoea: analysis of 40 cases. J Indian Med Assoc. 1991;89(2):42-3.
Kumar S, Mittal S. Primary amenorrhea: analysis of 48 cases. J Indian Med Assoc. 1998;96(4):119-20.
Fedele L, Bianchi S, Tozzi L, et al. Fertility in women with unicornuate uterus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:1007.
Rock JA. Surgery for anomalies of the mullerian ducts. Tompson JD, Rock JA, eds. TeLind's Operative Gynecology. 9th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 2003:705.
Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Dovie MB. Diagnosis of uterine anom- alies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 1992;183:795-800.
Brody JM, Koelliker SL, Frishman GN. Unicornuate uterus: imaging appearance, associated anomalies and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:1341-7.
Nicolini U, Bellotti M, Bonazzi B. Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations? Fertil Steril. 1987;47:89-93.
