TY - JOUR
T1 - Uterine leiomyomas in the infertile patient
T2 - Preoperative localization with MR imaging versus US and hysterosalpingography
AU - Dudiak, C. M.
AU - Turner, D. A.
AU - Patel, S. K.
AU - Archie, J. T.
AU - Silver, B.
AU - Norusis, M.
PY - 1988
Y1 - 1988
N2 - Eleven women with a history of infertility and uterine leiomyomas underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the pelvis prior to myomectomy. Nine also underwent preoperative pelvic ultrasonography (US), and ten underwent hysterosalpingography. All studies were interpreted prospectively by independent observers. With each imaging modality, the location (one of 11 anatomic segments), size, and appearance of detected uterine leiomyomas were determined and compared with surgical and histologic findings. Among the nine patients who underwent both MR and US, the sensitivity (85%) and accuracy (94%) of MR imaging for abnormal segments was significantly better than that of US (sensitivity = 69%, P = .015; accuracy = 87%, P = .043). For the ten patients who underwent both MR and hysterosalpingography, the sensitivity (91%) and accuracy (96%) of MR imaging was better than that of hysterosalpingography (sensitivity = 18%, P = .0005; accuracy = 72%, P = .0005). The specificities of the three modalities did not significantly differ (100%, 97%, and 98% for MR, US, and hysterosalpingography, respectively). These data suggest that MR imaging is superior to US or hysterosalpingography for preoperatively locating uterine leiomyomas.
AB - Eleven women with a history of infertility and uterine leiomyomas underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the pelvis prior to myomectomy. Nine also underwent preoperative pelvic ultrasonography (US), and ten underwent hysterosalpingography. All studies were interpreted prospectively by independent observers. With each imaging modality, the location (one of 11 anatomic segments), size, and appearance of detected uterine leiomyomas were determined and compared with surgical and histologic findings. Among the nine patients who underwent both MR and US, the sensitivity (85%) and accuracy (94%) of MR imaging for abnormal segments was significantly better than that of US (sensitivity = 69%, P = .015; accuracy = 87%, P = .043). For the ten patients who underwent both MR and hysterosalpingography, the sensitivity (91%) and accuracy (96%) of MR imaging was better than that of hysterosalpingography (sensitivity = 18%, P = .0005; accuracy = 72%, P = .0005). The specificities of the three modalities did not significantly differ (100%, 97%, and 98% for MR, US, and hysterosalpingography, respectively). These data suggest that MR imaging is superior to US or hysterosalpingography for preoperatively locating uterine leiomyomas.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023888284&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023888284&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/radiology.167.3.3283833
DO - 10.1148/radiology.167.3.3283833
M3 - Article
C2 - 3283833
AN - SCOPUS:0023888284
SN - 0033-8419
VL - 167
SP - 627
EP - 630
JO - Radiology
JF - Radiology
IS - 3
ER -