Back to the list
Congress: ECR25
Poster Number: C-22536
Type: Poster: EPOS Radiologist (educational)
DOI: 10.26044/ecr2025/C-22536
Authorblock: I. Isufi, S. Persiani, E. Sala, G. Avesani, B. Gui; Rome/IT
Disclosures:
Ina Isufi: Nothing to disclose
Salvatore Persiani: Nothing to disclose
Evis Sala: Nothing to disclose
Giacomo Avesani: Nothing to disclose
Benedetta Gui: Nothing to disclose
Keywords: Genital / Reproductive system female, Pelvis, MR, Education, Education and training
References
  1. Sugi MD, et al. Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Role in Fertility and Pregnancy. RadioGraphics 2021; 41:1857–1875.
  2. Bhagavath B, Ellie G, Griffiths KM, et al. Uterine Malformations: An Update of Diagnosis, Management, and Outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2017;72(6):377–392.
  3.  Expert Panel on Women’s Imaging; Wall DJ, Reinhold C, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Infertility. J Am Coll Radiol2020;17(5S):S113–S124.
  4. O’Flynn O’Brien KL, Bhatia V, Homafar M, et al. The Prevalence of Müllerian Anomalies in Women with a Diagnosed Renal Anomaly. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2021;34(2):154–160.
  5. Reuter KL, Daly DC, Cohen SM. Septate versus bicornuate uteri: errors in imaging diagnosis. Radiology 1989;172(3):749–752.
  6. Akhtar MA, Saravelos SH, Li TC, Jayaprakasan K; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Reproductive Implications and Management of Congenital Uterine Anomalies: Scientific Impact Paper No. 62 November 2019.BJOG 2020;127(5):e1–e13.
  7. Merritt BA, Behr SC, Khati NJ. Imaging of Infertility, Part 2:Hysterosalpingograms to Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2020;58(2):227–238.
  8. Genc M, Genc B, Cengiz H. Adenomyosis and accompanying gynecological pathologies. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 291(4):877-881.
  9. Manganaro L, Anastasi E, et al. Endometriosis: 10 keys points for MRI. Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders 2015; 7 (1): 10-18.
  10. Manganaro L, Vittori G, Vinci V, et al. Beyond laparoscopy: 3-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of posterior cul-de sac obliteration. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(10):1432-1438.
  11. Yang Q, Zhang LH, Su J, Liu J. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiation of uterine adenomyosis and leiomyoma. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79(2):e47-e51.
  12. Siegelman ES, Oliver ER. MR imaging of endometriosis: ten imaging pearls. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1675-1691.
  13. Chamié LP, Blasbalg R, Pereira RM, Warmbrand G, Serafini PC. Findings of pelvic endometriosis at transvaginal US, MR imaging, and laparoscopy. Radiographics. 2011;31(4):E77-E100.
  14. Kubik-Huch RA, Weston M, Nougaret S, et al. European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Guidelines: MR Imaging of Leiomyomas. Eur Radiol 2018;28(8):3125–3137.
  15. Yamashita Y, Torashima M, Takahashi M, et al. Hyperintense uterine leiomyoma at T2-weighted MR imaging: differentiation with dynamic enhanced MR imaging and clinical implications. Radiology1993;189(3):721–725.
  16. Tu W, Yano M, et al. Smooth Muscle Tumors of the Uterus at MRI: Focus on Leiomyomas and FIGO Classification. Radiographics 2023; 43(6):e220161.
  17. Donnez J, Dolmans MM. Uterine fibroid management: from the present to the future. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22(6):665–686.
  18. Baumgarten MN, Polanski LT. Modern management of fibroids. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 2020;30(4):104–108.
GALLERY