2004•RadiologyRequires access

Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Imaging and Clinical Issues

Robert N. Troiano, SHIRLEY M. MCCARTHY

Open publisher page 621 citations

Abstract

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 621 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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.

Key concepts: Medicine, Hysterosalpingography, Magnetic resonance imaging, Laparoscopy, Radiology, Ultrasonography, Infertility, Confusion

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Imaging and Clinical Issues — Research Paper | ScholarLens