CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF RADIOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS OF ADENOMYOSIS IN REPRODUCTIVE LOSSES
https://doi.org/10.25207/1608-6228-2019-26-2-173-190
Abstract
Aim. The aim is to analyze the data thus far published on the radiologic diagnosis of adenomyosis in patients with reproductive problems in order to determine promising areas for further scientifi c research.
Materials and methods. An information search for subsequent analysis was performed using E-Library, PubMed and CochraneLibrary electronic bibliographic databases with the following keywords: “ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis”, “MRI adenomyosis”, “junctional zone adenomyosis”, “ultrasound adenomyosis”, “diagnosis adenomyosis”, “magnetic resonance imaging adenomyosis”, “adenomyosis junction”.
Results. Imaging techniques are prioritized in diagnosing the initial incidence of adenomyosis. The value of such techniques increases when analyzing the causes of implantation failures. Key issues associated with the modern radiologic diagnosis and monitoring of adenomyosis during treatment have been considered on the basis of the standardization of studies, classifi cation of the disease, assessment of the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of imaging techniques in patients with reproductive losses and infertility.
Conclusion. Promising areas of scientifi c research are found to be the specifi cation of optimal diagnostic timeframes, informativity of diagnostic criteria for 3D reconstruction, MRI, elastography, angiography, as well as the development of prediction methods for healthy childbearing and monitoring the treatment effectiveness.
About the Authors
Alexey V. Pomortsev
Kuban State Medical University, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Med.), Prof., Head of Department, Department of Radiation Diagnostics,
Mitrofanа Sedinа str., 4, Krasnodar, 350063
Yulia V. Grushevskaya
Kuban State Medical University, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Research Assistant, Department of Radiation Diagnostics,
Mitrofanа Sedinа str., 4, Krasnodar, 350063
Tatyana B. Makukhina
Kuban State Medical University, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Med.), Assoc. Prof., Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Department of Advanced Training,
Mitrofanа Sedinа str., 4, Krasnodar, 350063
References
1. Prikaz Ministerstva zdravookhraneniya RF ot 30 avgusta 2012 g. № 107n «O poryadke ispol’zovaniya vspomogatel’nykh reproduktivnykh tekhnologii, protivopokazaniyakh i ogranicheniyakh k ikh primeneniyu». Ministerstvo zdravookhraneniya Rossiiskoi Federatsii; 2012 [updated 22.01.2014]. Available mode: https://static-1.rosminzdrav.ru/system/attachments/attaches/000/018/618/original/VRT_poryadok.PDF?1390392973 (In Russ.).
2. Adamyan L. V., Andreeva E. N., Apolikhina I. A., Bezhenar’ V. F., Gevorkyan M. A., Gus A. I., Demidov V. N., Kalinina E. A., Levakov S. A., Marchenko L. A., Popov A. A., Sonova M. M., Khashukoeva A. Z., Chernukha G. E., Yarotskaya E. L. Endometrioz: diagnostika, lechenie i reabilitatsiya. Federal clinical guidelines for the management of patients. M.; 2013: 65 (in Russ.).
3. Sinel’nikov R. D. Atlas anatomii cheloveka. In 3 volumes. V.2.: Uchenie o vnutrennostyakh i sosudakh. M.: Meditsina; 1966: 471 (in Russ.).
4. Van den Bosch T., Dueholm M., Leone F. P. et al. Terms, defi nitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 46(3): 284–298. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14806
5. Benagiano G., Brosens I., Lippi D. The History of Endometriosis. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2014; 78(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1159/000358919
6. Taran F., Stewart E., Brucker S. Adenomyosis: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Clinical Phenotype and Surgical and Interventional Alternatives to Hysterectomy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013; 73(9): 924–931. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1350840
7. Zaloudek C. J., Norris H. J. Mesenchymal tumors of the uterus. In: Kurman R. J., Hedrick E., Lora R., Brigitte M., editors. Blaunstein’s Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. 1987; 374–402. DOI: 10.1007/978-1- 4757-1942-0_13
8. Uduwela A. S., Perera M. A. K., Aiqing Li, Fraser I. S. Endometrial-Myometrial Interface: Relationship to Adenomyosis and Changes in Pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2000; 55(6): 390–400. DOI: 10.1097/00006254-200006000-00025
9. Mehasseb K. M., Habiba M. A. Adenomyosis uteri: an update. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2009; 11(1): 41–47. DOI: 10.1576/toag.11.1.41.27467
10. Gordts S., Brosens J. J., Fusi L., Benagiano G., Brosens I. Uterine adenomyosis: a need for uniform terminology and consensus classifi cation. Reprod. BioMed. Online. 2008; 17(2): 244–248. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60201-5
11. Dueholm M. Uterine adenomyosis and infertility, review of reproductive outcome after in vitro fertilization and surgery. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2017; 96(6): 715–726. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13158
12. Gavrilova T.Yu. Adenomioz: patogenez, diagnostika, lechenie, metody reabilitatsii: Extended abstract of PhD dissertation (Medicine). Moscow, 2007: 43 (In Russ.).
13. Younes G., Tulandi T. Effects of adenomyosis on in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes a meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2017; 108(3): 483–490. DOI: 10.1016/j. fertnstert.2017.06.025
14. Vercellini P., Consonni D., Barbara G., Buggio L., Frattaruolo M. P., Somigliana E. Adenomyosis and reproductive performance after surgery for rectovaginal and colorectal endometriosis a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. BioMed. Online. 2014; 28(6): 704–713. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.02.006
15. Harada T., Yin Mon Khine, Kaponis A., Nikellis T., Decavalas G., Tanigushi F. The impact of Adenomyosis on Womens Fertility. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2016; 71(9): 557–568. DOI: 10.1097/ogx.0000000000000346
16. Pinzauti S., Lazzeri L., Tosti C., Centini G., Orlandini C., Luisi S., Zupi E., Exacoustos C., Petraglia F. Transvaginal sonographic features of diffuse adenomyosis in 18–30-year-old nulligravid women without endometriosis: association with symptoms. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 46(6): 730–736. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14834
17. Brosens I., Gordts S., Habiba M., Benagiano G. Uterine Cystic Adenomyosis: A disease of younger women. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2015; 28(6): 420– 426. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpag.2014.05.008
18. Benagiano G., Brosens I., Habiba M. Adenomyosis: a life-cycle approach. Reprod. BioMed. Online. 2015; 30(3): 220–232. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.11.005
19. Naftalin J., Hoo W., Pateman K., Mavrelos D., Foo X., Jurkovic D. Is adenomyosis associated with menorrhagia? Hum. Reproduct. 2014; 29(3): 473–479. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det451
20. Bazot M., Cortez A., Darai E., Rouger J., Chopier J., Antoine J. M., Uzan S. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum. Reproduct. 2001; 16(11): 2427–2433. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427
21. Champaneria R., Abedin P., Daniels J., Balogun M., Khan Khalid S. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2010; 89(11): 1374–1384. DOI: 10.3109/00016349.2010.512061
22. Bulanov M. N. Ul’trazvukovaja ginekologija. In 2 volumes. V.1.: Ul’trazvukovaja ginekologija. M.: Vidar-M; 2012: 560 (In Russ.).
23. Hanafi M. Ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis, leiomyoma, or combined with histopathological correlation. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 2013; 6(3): 189–193. DOI: 10.4103/0974-1208.121421
24. Donato N. di, Bertoldo V., Montanari G., Zannoni L., Caprara G., Seracchioli R. Question mark form of uterus: a simple sonographic sign associated with the presence of adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 46(1): 124–127. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14750
25. Bazot M., Darai E., Rouger J., Detchev R., Cortez A., Uzan S. Limitations of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis, with histopathological correlation. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2002; 20(6): 605–611. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00852.x
26. Ozerskaja I. A. Ehografi ja v ginekologii. M.: Medika; 2005: 292 (In Russ.).
27. Ozerskaja I. A. Ehografi ja v ginekologii. 2nd edit. M.: Vidar-M; 2013: 564 (In Russ.).
28. Gevorkjan E. G., Tohunts K. A. Znachenie trehmernoj sonografi i v opredelenii variantov vnutrennego endometrioza tela matki. Meditsinskaja nauka Armenii. 2013; 53(3): 123–129. Available mode: http://medsci. asj-oa.am/id/eprint/5906 (In Russ.).
29. Ozerskaja I. A., Scheglova E. A., Belousov M. A., Sirotinkina E. V., Dolgova E. P., Devitskij A. A. Otsenka gemodinamiki matki u bol’nyh s vnutrennim endometriozom. Ul’trazvukovaja i funktsional’naja diagnostika. 2014; 1: 37–46 (In Russ.).
30. Makukhina T. B. Kliniko-ekhografi cheskaya diagnostika vnutrennego endometrioza tela matki: Extended abstract of PhD dissertation (Medicine). Krasnodar, 2004. 20 (In Russ.). Available mode: http://www.dissercat.com/content/kliniko-ekhografi cheskaya-diagnostika-vnutrennego-endometrioza-tela-matki
31. Sharma K., Bora M. K., Venkatesh B. P., Barman P., Roy S. K., Jayagurunathan U., Sellamuthu E., Moidu F. Role of 3D ultrasound and doppler in differentiating clinically suspected cases of leiomyoma and adenomyosis of uterus. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2015; 9(4): 8–12. DOI: 10.7860/jcdr/2015/12240.5846
32. Lobanov K. A. Ekhografi cheskaya diagnostika effektivnosti konservativnogo lecheniya vnutrennego endometrioza tela matki: Extended abstract of PhD dissertation (Medicine). Krasnodar, 2017: 22 (In Russ.). Available mode: https://dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01006658310#?page=1
33. Kepkep K., Tuncay Y. A., Goynumer G., Tutal E. Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which fi ndings are most accurate? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; 30(3): 341–345. DOI: 10.1002/uog.3985
34. Dueholm M., Lundorf E., Hansen E. S., Sorensen J. S., Ledertoug S., Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril. 2001; 76(3): 588–594. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01962-8
35. Sakhel K., Abuhamad A. Sonography of Adenomyosis. J. Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31(5): 805–808. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2012.31.5.805
36. Puente J. M., Fabris A., Patel J., Patel A., Cerrillo M., Requena A., Garcia-Velasco J. A. Adenomyosis in infertile women: prevalence and the role of 3D ultrasound as a marker of severity of the disease. Reprod. Biol. Endocrin. 2016; 14(1). DOI: 10.1186/s12958- 016-0185-6
37. Rasmussen C. K., Glavind J., Madsen L. D., Uldbjerg N., Dueholm M. Repeatability of junctional zone measurements using 3-dimensional transvaginal sonography in healthy fertile women. J. Ultrasound Med. 2016; 35(7): 1497–1508. DOI: 10.7863/ultra.15.06086
38. Lazzarin N., Exacoustos C., Vaquero E., de Felice G., Manfellotto D., Zupi E. Uterine junctional zone at three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography in patients with recurrent miscarriage: a new diagnostic tool? Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.2014; 174: 128–132. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.014
39. Larsen S. B., Lundorf E., Forman A., Dueholm M. Adenomyosis and junctional zone changes in patients with endometriosis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2011; 157(2): 206–211. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.03.003
40. Fanchin R., Ayoubi J. M. Uterine dynamics: impact on the human reproduction process. Reprod. BioMed. Online. 2009; 18: 57–62. DOI: 10.1016/S1472- 6483(10)60450-6
41. Kissler S., Hamscho N., Zangos S., Wiegratz I., Schlichter S., Menzel C., Doebert N., Gruenwald F., Vogl T. J., Gaetje R., Rody A., Siebzehnruebl E., Kunz G., Leyendecker G., Kaufmann M. Uterotubal transport disorder in adenomyosis and endometriosis — a cause for infertility. Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2006; 113(8): 902– 908. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00970.x
42. Youm H. S., Choi Y. S., Han H. D. In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes in relation to myometrial thickness. J. Assist. Reprod. Gen. 2011; 28(11): 1135–1140. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-011-9640-7
43. Cho H., Kwon J., Kim Y., Park Y. Comparison of uterus volume measurements in patients with adenomyosis using two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 42(1): 111. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12909
44. Exacoustos C., Brienza L., Giovanni Di A., Szabolcs B., Romanini M. E., Zupi E., Arduini D. Adenomyosis: three-dimensional sonographic fi ndings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 37(4): 471–479. DOI: 10.1002/uog.8900
45. Naftalin J., Hoo W., Nunes N., Mavrelos D., Nicks H., Jurkovic D. Inter- and intraobserver variability in three-dimensional ultrasound assessment of the endometrial-myometrial junction and factors affecting its visualization. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 39(5): 587–591. DOI: 10.1002/uog.10133
46. Dueholm M. Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2006; 20(4): 569–582. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.01.005
47. Exacoustos C., Brienza L., Cillis A. G., Bertonotti E., Amadio A., Amoroso C., Zupi E., Arduini D. Three dimensional evaluation of adenomyosis: correlation of sonographic fi ndings to histology. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 34(1): 20. DOI: 10.1002/uog.6517
48. Luciano D. E., Exacoustos C., Albrecht L., LaMonica R., Proffer A., Zupi E., Luciano A. A. Three dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis of adenomyosis: histologic correlation with ultrasound targeted biopsies of the uterus. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20(6): 803–810. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.05.002
49. Exacoustos C., Luciano D., Corbett B., Felice G. de, Feliciantonio M. di, Luciano A., Zupi E. The uterine junctional zone: a 3-dimensional ultrasound study of patients with endometriosis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 209(3): 248. е1–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.06.006
50. Ahmed A. I., Mahmoud A. E. A., Fadiel A. A., Frederick N. Comparison of 2-, 3D and doppler ultrasound with histological fi ndings in adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril. 2007; 88: 82. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.272
51. Leone F. P. G., Marciante C., Crepaldi A., Bignardi T., Ferrazzi E. Uterine adenomyosis at 3D transvaginal sonography by VCI analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; 30(4): 413–414. DOI: 10.1002/uog.4258
52. Raine-Fenning N. J., Campbell B. K., Clewes J. S., Kendall N. R., Johnson I. R. The reliability of virtual organ computer-aided analysis (VOCAL) for the semiquantifi cation of ovarian, endometrial and subendometrial perfusion. Ult. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003; 22(6): 633–639. DOI: 10.1002/uog.923
53. Anisimov A. V. VOCAL kolichestvennyj analiz v trehmernoj ehografi i. SonoAce-Ultrasound. 2010; 21: 89– 95 (in Russ.).
54. Le Carpentier G. L., Roubidoux M. A., Fowlkes J. B., Krücker J. F., Hunt K. A., Paramagul C., Johnson T. D., Thorson N. J., Engle K. D., Carson P. L. Suspicious breast lesions: assessment of 3D Doppler US indexes for classifi cation in a test population and fourfold cross-validation scheme. Radiology. 2008; 249(2): 463–470. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2492060888
55. Kupeshich S., Kur’yak A., Mikhailov A. TsDK pri issledovanii matochnogo faktora besplodiya. Transvaginal’nyi tsvetovoi doppler. Sankt-Peterburg: Petropolis; 2001: 35 (in Russ.).
56. Schindl M., Birner P., Obermair A., Kiesel L., Wenzl R. Increased microvessel density in adenomyosis uteri. Fertil. Steril. 2001; 75(1): 131–135. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(00)01642-3
57. Unanyan A. L., Sidorova I. S., Kogan E. A. Active and inactive adenomiosis: clinicomorphologic variables of development and differential approach to treatment. Akusherstvo, Ginekologiya i Reproduktsiya. 2012; 6(2): 25–30. (In Russ., English Abstract).
58. Laschke M. W., Menger M. D. Anti-angiogenic treatment strategies for the therapy of endometriosis. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2012; 18(6): 682–702. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dms026
59. Damirov M. M. Adenomioz: klinika, diagnostika i lechenie. M.: Triada; 2002: 294 (In Russ.).
60. Xavier P., Beires J., Barros H., Martinez-de-Oliveira J. Subendometrial and intraendometrial blood fl ow during the menstrual cycle in patients with endometriosis. Fertil. Steril. 2005; 84(1): 52–59. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.114
61. Anicic R., Djukic M., Rakic S. Evaluation of utero-ovarian hemodynamics in relation to fertility and stage of endometriosis. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 39(4): 526–528.
62. Pomortsev A. V., Makukhina T. B., Lobanov K. A., Zubakhin A. G. Ultrasound diagnostic adenomyosis. Kubanskii Nauchnyi Meditsinskii Vestnik. 2015; 2(151): 118–124 (In Russ., English Abstract).
63. Domali E., Kyriakopoulos K., Antsaklis A. Ultrasonography: the main diagnostic tool in subfertile women. Donald School J. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 6: 270–285. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1250
64. Verma S. K., Lev-Toaff A. S., Baltarowich O. H., Bergin D., Verma M., Mitchell D. G. Adenomyosis: Sonohysterography with MRI Correlation. Am. J. Roentgen. 2009; 192: 1112–1116. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.08.1405
65. Momtaz M., Gouda H., Derbala Y., Elsherbiny A. Comparison of saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) with unenhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 36(1): 93. DOI: 10.1002/uog.8395
66. Reeves M. F., Goldstein R. B., Jones K. D. Communication of adenomyosis with the endometrial cavity: visualization with saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 36(1): 115–119. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7513
67. Lullа C. P., Garg S. A. Use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound with SonoVue in differentiation between uterine leiomyoma and uterine adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 40(1): 1–54. DOI: 10.1002/uog.11324
68. Naftalin J., Jurkovic D. The endometrial-myometrial junction: a fresh look at a busy crossing. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 34: 1–11. DOI: 10.1002/uog.6432
69. Becker E., Lev-Toaff A. S., Kaufman E. P., Halpern E. J., Edelweiss M. I., Kurtz A. B. The added value of transvaginal sonohysterography over transvaginal sonography alone in women with known or suspected leiomyoma. J. Ultrasound Med. 2002; 21(3): 237–247. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2002.21.3.237
70. Serafi ni G., Prefumo F., Gandolfo G. N., Crocetti L., Gandolfo N. M. Differential diagnosis of uterine myomas and adenomyosis by color Doppler (CD) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEU). Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006; 28:(4): 380. DOI: 10.1002/uog.2935
71. Veldman J., Holsbeke C. V., Werbrouck E., Bourne T., Timmerman D. Elastography in gynecology: preliminary experience. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 34(1): 140. DOI: 10.1002/uog.6892
72. Veldman J., Holsbeke C. V., Werbrouck E., Bourne T., Timmerman D. Differentiation of uterine pathology by transvaginal elastography: preliminary results. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 36(1): 14–15. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7810
73. Tessarolo M., Bonino L., Camanni M., Deltetto F. Elastosonography: a possibly new tool for diagnosis of adenomyosis? Eur. Radiol. 2011; 21(7): 1546–1552. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2064-z
74. Mit’kov V. V., Khuako S.A, Sarkisov S. E., Mit’kova M. D. Value of shear wave elastography and elastometry in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Ul’trazvukovaya i Funktsional’naya Diagnostika. 2011; 6: 22–31 (In Russ., English Abstract).
75. Mit’kov V. V., Khuako S. A., Tsyganov S. E. Comparative analysis of shear wave elastography and results of uterine morphological examination (preliminary results). Ul’trazvukovaya i Funktsional’naya Diagnostika. 2013; 5: 99–114 (In Russ., English Abstract).
76. Stoelinga B., Hehenkamp W., Brolmann H., Huirne J. The additional value of elastography to gray-scale ultrasound in the assessment of fi broids and adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet.Gynecol. 2015; 46 (s1): 84. DOI: 10.1002/uog.15200
77. Stoelinga B., Hehenkamp W. J. K., Brolmann H. A. M., Huirne J. A. F. Real-time elastography for assessment of uterine disorders. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 43(2): 218–226. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12519
78. Stoelinga B., Hehenkamp W., Brolmann H., Huirne J. The additional value of elastography to gray-scale ultrasound in the assessment of fibroids and adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 46: 84. DOI: 10.1002/uog.15200
79. Masui T., Knatayama M., Kobayashi S., Nakayama S., Nozaki A., Kabasawa H., Ito T., Sakahara H. Changes in myometrial and junctional zone thickness and signal intensity: demonstration with kinematic T2-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 2001; 221(1): 75–85. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2211001390
80. Kunz G., Beil D., Huppert P., Noe M., Kissler S., Leyendecker G. Adenomyosis in endometriosis — prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum. Reproduc. 2005; 20(8): 2309–2316. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei021
81. Maubon A., Faury A., Kapella M., Pouquet M., Piver P. Uterine junctional zone at magnetic resonace imaging: A predictor of in vitro fertilization implantation failure. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2010; 36(3): 611– 618. DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01189.x
82. Souza N. M., Brosens J. J., Schwieso J. E., Paraschos T., Winston R. M. L. The potential value of magnetic resonance imaging in infertility. Clin. Radiol. 1995; 50(2): 75–79. DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)82983-6
83. Novellas S., Chassang M., Delotte J., Toullalan O., Chevallier A., Bouaziz J., Chevallier P. MRI Characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011; 196(5): 1206–1213. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.10.4877
84. Chiang C. H., Chang M. Y., Shiau C. S. Effect of a sonographically diffusely enlarged uterus without distinct uterine masses on the outcome of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J. Ass. Reproduc.Gen. 1999; 16: 369–372.
85. Piver P. Uterine factors limiting ART coverage. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reproduc. Biol. 2005; 34(5): 30– 33. ISSN: 0368–2315
86. Lesny P., Killick S. R. Review: The junctional zone of the uterus and its contractions. Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2004; 111(11): 1182–1189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00350.x
87. Imaoka I., Ascher S. M., Sugimura K., Takahashi K., Li H., Cuomo F., Simon J., Arnold L. L. MR imaging of diffuse adenomyosis changes after GnRH analog therapy. J. Magn. Reson. Imag. 2002; 15(3): 285–290. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.10060
88. Shaaban O. M., Ali M. A., Ali M. K., Sabra A. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus a lowdose combined oral contraceptive for treatment of adenomyotic uteri: a randomized clinical trial. Contraception. 2015; 92(4): 301–307. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.05.015
89. Makukhina T. B., Pomortsev A. V., Lobanov K. A. Doppler sonography peculiarities of uterus tissual blood fl ow of patients with adenomyosis treated with steroid hormonal therapy. Ultrasound Оbstet. Gynecol. 2011, 38(1): 265 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.1002/uog.9959
90. Makukhina T. B., Lobanov K. A., Pomortsev A. V., Ponomarev V. V. Doppler sonography pecularities of adenomyosis during steroid hormonal therapy. Kubanskii Nauchnyi Meditsinskii Vestnik. 2012; 1(130): 110–114 (In Russ., English Abstract).
Review
For citations:
Pomortsev A.V., Grushevskaya Yu.V., Makukhina T.B. CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF RADIOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS OF ADENOMYOSIS IN REPRODUCTIVE LOSSES. Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin. 2019;26(2):173-190. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25207/1608-6228-2019-26-2-173-190
Views:
783
Email this article 