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

被引：28
作者：
Carbognin G. [1 ]
Girardi V. [1 ]
Pinali L. [1 ]
Raffaelli R. [2 ]
Bergamini V. [2 ]
Pozzi Mucelli R. [1 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Radiology, University Hospital G.B. Rossi
[2] Department of Gynaecology, University Hospital G.B. Rossi, I-37134 Verona
来源：
La radiologia medica | 2006年 / 111卷 / 5期
关键词：
Endometriosis; Magnetic resonance; Ultrasound;
D O I：
10.1007/s11547-006-0066-8
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
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.
引用
收藏
页码：687 / 701
页数：14
相关论文
共 27 条
[11]  
Brosens I.A., Endometriosis: Current issues in diagnosis and medical management, J Reprod Med, 43, pp. 281-286, (1998)
[12]  
Revised American Fertility Society classification of endometriosis: 1985, Fertil Steril, 43, pp. 351-352, (1985)
[13]  
Bis K.G., Vrachliotis T.G., Agrawal R., Et al., Pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging spectrum with laparoscopic correlation and diagnostic pitfalls, Radiographics, 17, pp. 639-655, (1997)
[14]  
Guerriero S., Mais V., Ajossa S., Et al., The role of endovaginal ultrasound in differentiating endometriomas from other ovarian cysts, Clin Exp Obst Gyn, 22, pp. 20-22, (1995)
[15]  
Patel M.D., Feldstein V.A., Chen D.C., Et al., Endometriomas: Diagnostic performance of US, Radiology, 210, pp. 739-745, (1999)
[16]  
Guerriero S., Ajossa S., Melis G., Et al., Performance of US in the diagnosis of endometrioma. Drs Patel and Filly respond, Radiology, 215, pp. 305-307, (2000)
[17]  
Fedele L., Bianchi S., Portuese A., Et al., Transrectal ultrasonography in the assessment of rectovaginal endometriosis, Obstet Gynecol, 91, pp. 444-448, (1998)
[18]  
Bazot M., Darai E., Hourani R., Et al., Deep pelvic endometriosis: MR for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease, Radiology, 232, pp. 379-389, (2004)
[19]  
Chapron C., Vieira M., Chopin N., Et al., Accuracy of rectal endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rectal involvement for patients presenting with deeply infiltrating endometriosis, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 24, pp. 175-179, (2004)
[20]  
Takahashi K., Okada M., Okada S., Et al., Studies on the detection of small endometrial implants by magnetic resonance imaging using a fat saturation technique, Gynecol Obstet Invest, 41, pp. 203-206, (1996)
123