Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online before print August 18, 2004, 10.1148/radiol.2331020777

(Radiology 2004;233:19.)

A more recent version of this article appeared on October 1, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2331020777v1
233/1/19    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Troiano, R. N.
Right arrow Articles by McCarthy, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Troiano, R. N.
Right arrow Articles by McCarthy, S. M.
© RSNA, 2004

State of the Art

Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Imaging and Clinical Issues1

Robert N. Troiano, MD and Shirley M. McCarthy, MD, PhD

1 From the Departments of Radiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 1300 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 (R.M.T.), and Department of Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (S.M.M.). Received June 25, 2002; revision requested August 22; final revision received August 25, 2003; accepted September 29. Address correspondence to R.N.T. (e-mail: rnt2001@med.cornell.edu).

While estimates of the frequency of müllerian duct anomalies vary widely owing to different patient populations, nonstandardized classification systems, and differences in diagnostic data acquisition, these anomalies are clinically important, particularly in women who present with infertility. An understanding of the differences between these uterovaginal anomalies, as outlined in the most widely accepted classification system—that published by the American Fertility Society (AFS) in 1988—is imperative given the respective clinical manifestations, different treatment regimens, and prognosis for fetal salvage. Although the AFS classification system serves as a framework for description of anomalies, communication among physicians, and comparison of therapeutic modalities, there often is confusion about appropriate reporting of certain anomalies, particularly those with features of more than one class. Many of the anomalies are initially diagnosed at hysterosalpingography and ultrasonography; however, further imaging is often required for definitive diagnosis and elaboration of secondary findings. At this time, magnetic resonance imaging is the study of choice because of its high accuracy and detailed elaboration of uterovaginal anatomy. Laparoscopy and hysteroscopy are reserved for women in whom interventional therapy is likely to be undertaken.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Genitourinary system, abnormalities • Genitourinary system, MR, 85.121411 • Genitourinary system, radiography, 85.1282 • Genitourinary system, US, 85.12981, 85.12983 • State of the Art • Uterus, abnormalities, 854.1411, 854.1413, 854.14783, 854.14784




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
S. H. Saravelos, K. A. Cocksedge, and T.-C. Li
Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal
Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2008; 14(5): 415 - 429.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. Evan and B. Kramer
Uterine Diverticula and Accessory Ducts
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): W71 - W71.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
T. D. Deutch and A. Z. Abuhamad
The Role of 3-Dimensional Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Mullerian Duct Anomalies: A Review of the Literature
J. Ultrasound Med., March 1, 2008; 27(3): 413 - 423.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
G. C. Mueller, H. K. Hussain, Y. R. Smith, E. H. Quint, R. C. Carlos, T. D. Johnson, and J. O. DeLancey
Mullerian Duct Anomalies: Comparison of MRI Diagnosis and Clinical Diagnosis
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2007; 189(6): 1294 - 1302.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
T. M. Dykes, C. Siegel, and W. Dodson
Imaging of Congenital Uterine Anomalies: Review and Self-Assessment Module
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3_Supplement): S1 - S10.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. J. Madureira, C. M. Mariz, J. C. Bernardes, and I. M. Ramos
Case 94: uterus didelphys with obstructing hemivaginal septum and ipsilateral renal agenesis.
Radiology, May 1, 2006; 239(2): 602 - 606.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
W. L. Simpson Jr, L. G. Beitia, and J. Mester
Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study.
RadioGraphics, March 1, 2006; 26(2): 419 - 431.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2004 by the Radiological Society of North America.