Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of routine pelvic US and MR imaging in patients with pathologically confirmed endometriosis.
Bartlett, David J; Burkett, Brian J; Burnett, Tatnai L; Sheedy, Shannon P; Fletcher, Joel G; VanBuren, Wendaline M.
Afiliação
  • Bartlett DJ; Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
  • Burkett BJ; Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
  • Burnett TL; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
  • Sheedy SP; Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
  • Fletcher JG; Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
  • VanBuren WM; Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. vanburen.wendaline@mayo.edu.
Abdom Radiol (NY) ; 45(6): 1670-1679, 2020 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31300849
PURPOSE: To estimate the benefit of pelvic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after routine pelvic ultrasound (US) in patients with pathologically or surgically proven endometriosis. METHODS: Patients with surgically or pathologically proven endometriosis who had routine pelvic US followed by pelvic MR within 6 months prior to surgery were included. Patients were excluded if they had previously confirmed endometriosis, pregnancy, or surgery > 6 months after MR. The detection rate of endometriosis by pelvic US and MR was compared to the surgical/pathological reference standard. RESULTS: 83 female patients (mean age 40 ± 9) met inclusion criteria and had surgical/pathological confirmation of endometriosis. The mean time interval between pelvic US and MR was 33 ± 43 days, with 64 ± 69 days between MR examination and surgery. US detected endometriosis in 22% (18/83) of patients compared to 61% (51/83) for MR (p < 0.0001). 51% (33/65) of patients with a negative pelvic US exam had a positive MR. MR identified additional sites or sequela in the majority of patients with a positive US (14/18; 78%), including extraovarian locations [e.g., fallopian tubes 7/18 (39%), uterus 7/18 (39%), uterine ligaments 6/18 (33%), posterior cul de sac 5/18 (28%), pelvic side walls 5/18 (28%), abdominal wall 1/18 (6%)] and sequela [ovarian tethering 5/18 (28%), 6/18 (33%) bowel adhesive disease, posterior cul de sac obliteration 2/18 (11%), hydrosalpinx 2/18 (11%), and hydronephrosis 1/18 (6%)]. 3 T MR detected endometriosis in 33/46 (72%) patients compared to 18/37 (49%) for 1.5 T MR (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Pelvic MR imaging had a higher detection rate of surgically/pathologically proven endometriosis and provides more information about disease location and sequela compared to routine pelvic US.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Endometriose Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Abdom Radiol (NY) Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Endometriose Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Abdom Radiol (NY) Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos