- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1 Introduction
- •2.1 Posterior Compartment
- •2.2 Anterior Compartment
- •2.3 Middle Compartment
- •2.4 Perineal Body
- •3 Compartments
- •3.1 Posterior Compartment
- •3.1.1 Connective Tissue Structures
- •3.1.2 Muscles
- •3.1.3 Reinterpreted Anatomy and Clinical Relevance
- •3.2 Anterior Compartment
- •3.2.1 Connective Tissue Structures
- •3.2.2 Muscles
- •3.2.3 Reinterpreted Anatomy and Clinical Relevance
- •3.2.4 Important Vessels, Nerves, and Lymphatics of the Anterior Compartment
- •3.3 Middle Compartment
- •3.3.1 Connective Tissue Structures
- •3.3.2 Muscles
- •3.3.3 Reinterpreted Anatomy and Clinical Relevance
- •3.3.4 Important Vessels, Nerves, and Lymphatics of the Middle Compartment
- •4 Perineal Body
- •References
- •MR and CT Techniques
- •1 Introduction
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2.1 Spasmolytic Medication
- •2.3.2 Diffusion-Weighted Imaging
- •2.3.3 Dynamic Contrast Enhancement
- •3 CT Technique
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Technical Disadvantages
- •3.4 Oral and Rectal Contrast
- •References
- •Uterus: Normal Findings
- •1 Introduction
- •References
- •1 Clinical Background
- •1.1 Epidemiology
- •1.2 Clinical Presentation
- •1.3 Embryology
- •1.4 Pathology
- •2 Imaging
- •2.1 Technique
- •2.2.1 Class I Anomalies: Dysgenesis
- •2.2.2 Class II Anomalies: Unicornuate Uterus
- •2.2.3 Class III Anomalies: Uterus Didelphys
- •2.2.4 Class IV Anomalies: Bicornuate Uterus
- •2.2.5 Class V Anomalies: Septate Uterus
- •2.2.6 Class VI Anomalies: Arcuate Uterus
- •2.2.7 Class VII Anomalies
- •References
- •Benign Uterine Lesions
- •1 Background
- •1.1 Uterine Leiomyomas
- •1.1.1 Epidemiology
- •1.1.2 Pathogenesis
- •1.1.3 Histopathology
- •1.1.4 Clinical Presentation
- •1.1.5 Therapy
- •1.1.5.1 Indications
- •1.1.5.2 Medical Therapy and Ablation
- •1.1.5.3 Surgical Therapy
- •1.1.5.4 Uterine Artery Embolization (UAE)
- •1.1.5.5 Magnetic Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound
- •2 Adenomyosis of the Uterus
- •2.1 Epidemiology
- •2.2 Pathogenesis
- •2.3 Histopathology
- •2.4 Clinical Presentation
- •2.5 Therapy
- •3 Imaging
- •3.2 Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •3.2.1 Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Technique
- •3.2.2 MR Appearance of Uterine Leiomyomas
- •3.2.3 Locations, Growth Patterns, and Imaging Characteristics
- •3.2.4 Histologic Subtypes and Forms of Degeneration
- •3.2.5 Differential Diagnosis
- •3.2.6 MR Appearance of Uterine Adenomyosis
- •3.2.7 Locations, Growth Patterns, and Imaging Characteristics
- •3.2.8 Differential Diagnosis
- •3.3 Computed Tomography
- •3.3.1 CT Technique
- •3.3.2 CT Appearance of Uterine Leiomyoma and Adenomyosis
- •3.3.3 Atypical Appearances on CT and Differential Diagnosis
- •4.1 Indications
- •4.2 Technique
- •Bibliography
- •Cervical Cancer
- •1 Background
- •1.1 Epidemiology
- •1.2 Pathogenesis
- •1.3 Screening
- •1.4 HPV Vaccination
- •1.5 Clinical Presentation
- •1.6 Histopathology
- •1.7 Staging
- •1.8 Growth Patterns
- •1.9 Treatment
- •1.9.1 Treatment of Microinvasive Cervical Cancer
- •1.9.2 Treatment of Grossly Invasive Cervical Carcinoma (FIGO IB-IVA)
- •1.9.3 Treatment of Recurrent Disease
- •1.9.4 Treatment of Cervical Cancer During Pregnancy
- •1.10 Prognosis
- •2 Imaging
- •2.1 Indications
- •2.1.1 Role of CT and MRI
- •2.2 Imaging Technique
- •2.2.2 Dynamic MRI
- •2.2.3 Coil Technique
- •2.2.4 Vaginal Opacification
- •2.3 Staging
- •2.3.1 General MR Appearance
- •2.3.2 Rare Histologic Types
- •2.3.3 Tumor Size
- •2.3.4 Local Staging
- •2.3.4.1 Stage IA
- •2.3.4.2 Stage IB
- •2.3.4.3 Stage IIA
- •2.3.4.4 Stage IIB
- •2.3.4.5 Stage IIIA
- •2.3.4.6 Stage IIIB
- •2.3.4.7 Stage IVA
- •2.3.4.8 Stage IVB
- •2.3.5 Lymph Node Staging
- •2.3.6 Distant Metastases
- •2.4 Specific Diagnostic Queries
- •2.4.1 Preoperative Imaging
- •2.4.2 Imaging Before Radiotherapy
- •2.5 Follow-Up
- •2.5.1 Findings After Surgery
- •2.5.2 Findings After Chemotherapy
- •2.5.3 Findings After Radiotherapy
- •2.5.4 Recurrent Cervical Cancer
- •2.6.1 Ultrasound
- •2.7.1 Metastasis
- •2.7.2 Malignant Melanoma
- •2.7.3 Lymphoma
- •2.8 Benign Lesions of the Cervix
- •2.8.1 Nabothian Cyst
- •2.8.2 Leiomyoma
- •2.8.3 Polyps
- •2.8.4 Rare Benign Tumors
- •2.8.5 Cervicitis
- •2.8.6 Endometriosis
- •2.8.7 Ectopic Cervical Pregnancy
- •References
- •Endometrial Cancer
- •1.1 Epidemiology
- •1.2 Pathology and Risk Factors
- •1.3 Symptoms and Diagnosis
- •2 Endometrial Cancer Staging
- •2.1 MR Protocol for Staging Endometrial Carcinoma
- •2.2.1 Stage I Disease
- •2.2.2 Stage II Disease
- •2.2.3 Stage III Disease
- •2.2.4 Stage IV Disease
- •4 Therapeutic Approaches
- •4.1 Surgery
- •4.2 Adjuvant Treatment
- •4.3 Fertility-Sparing Treatment
- •5.1 Treatment of Recurrence
- •6 Prognosis
- •References
- •Uterine Sarcomas
- •1 Epidemiology
- •2 Pathology
- •2.1 Smooth Muscle Tumours
- •2.2 Endometrial Stromal Tumours
- •3 Clinical Background
- •4 Staging
- •5 Imaging
- •5.1 Leiomyosarcoma
- •5.2.3 Undifferentiated Uterine Sarcoma
- •5.3 Adenosarcoma
- •6 Prognosis and Treatment
- •References
- •1.1 Anatomical Relationships
- •1.4 Pelvic Fluid
- •2 Developmental Anomalies
- •2.1 Congenital Abnormalities
- •2.2 Ovarian Maldescent
- •3 Ovarian Transposition
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •4 Benign Adnexal Lesions
- •4.1.1 Physiological Ovarian Cysts: Follicular and Corpus Luteum Cysts
- •4.1.1.1 Imaging Findings in Physiological Ovarian Cysts
- •4.1.1.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •4.1.2 Paraovarian Cysts
- •4.1.2.1 Imaging Findings
- •4.1.2.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •4.1.3 Peritoneal Inclusion Cysts
- •4.1.3.1 Imaging Findings
- •4.1.3.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •4.1.4 Theca Lutein Cysts
- •4.1.4.1 Imaging Findings
- •4.1.4.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •4.1.5 Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
- •4.1.5.1 Imaging Findings
- •4.1.5.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •4.2.1 Cystadenoma
- •4.2.1.1 Imaging Findings
- •4.2.1.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •4.2.2 Cystadenofibroma
- •4.2.2.1 Imaging Features
- •4.2.3 Mature Teratoma
- •4.2.3.1 Mature Cystic Teratoma
- •Imaging Findings
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •4.2.3.2 Monodermal Teratoma
- •Imaging Findings
- •4.2.4 Benign Sex Cord-Stromal Tumors
- •4.2.4.1 Fibroma and Thecoma
- •Imaging Findings
- •4.2.4.2 Sclerosing Stromal Tumor
- •Imaging Findings
- •4.2.5 Brenner Tumors
- •4.2.5.1 Imaging Findings
- •4.2.5.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •5 Functioning Ovarian Tumors
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •2.1 Context
- •2.2.2 Indications According to Simple Rules
- •References
- •CT and MRI in Ovarian Carcinoma
- •1 Introduction
- •2.1 Familial or Hereditary Ovarian Cancers
- •3 Screening for Ovarian Cancer
- •5 Tumor Markers
- •6 Clinical Presentation
- •7 Imaging of Ovarian Cancer
- •7.1.2 Peritoneal Carcinomatosis
- •7.1.3 Ascites
- •7.3 Staging of Ovarian Cancer
- •7.3.1 Staging by CT and MRI
- •Imaging Findings According to Tumor Stages
- •Value of Imaging
- •7.3.2 Prediction of Resectability
- •7.4 Tumor Types
- •7.4.1 Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
- •High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer
- •Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer
- •Mucinous Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
- •Endometrioid Ovarian Carcinomas
- •Clear Cell Carcinomas
- •Imaging Findings of Epithelial Ovarian Cancers
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Borderline Tumors
- •Imaging Findings
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Recurrent Ovarian Cancer
- •Imaging Findings
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Value of Imaging
- •Malignant Germ Cell Tumors
- •Dysgerminomas
- •Imaging Findings
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Immature Teratomas
- •Imaging Findings
- •Malignant Transformation in Benign Teratoma
- •Imaging Findings
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Sex-Cord Stromal Tumors
- •Granulosa Cell Tumors
- •Imaging Findings
- •Sertoli-Leydig Cell Tumor
- •Imaging Findings
- •Ovarian Lymphoma
- •Imaging Findings
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •7.4.3 Ovarian Metastases
- •Imaging Findings
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •7.5 Fallopian Tube Cancer
- •7.5.1 Imaging Findings
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •References
- •Endometriosis
- •1 Introduction
- •2.1 Sonography
- •3 MR Imaging Findings
- •References
- •Vagina and Vulva
- •1 Introduction
- •3.1 CT Appearance
- •3.2 MRI Protocol
- •3.3 MRI Appearance
- •4.1 Imperforate Hymen
- •4.2 Congenital Vaginal Septa
- •4.3 Vaginal Agenesis
- •5.1 Vaginal Cysts
- •5.1.1 Gardner Duct Cyst (Mesonephric Cyst)
- •5.1.2 Bartholin Gland Cyst
- •5.2.1 Vaginal Infections
- •5.2.1.1 Vulvar Infections
- •5.2.1.2 Vulvar Thrombophlebitis
- •5.3 Vulvar Trauma
- •5.4 Vaginal Fistula
- •5.5 Post-Radiation Changes
- •5.6 Benign Tumors
- •6.1 Vaginal Malignancies
- •6.1.1 Primary Vaginal Carcinoma
- •6.1.1.1 MRI Findings
- •6.1.1.2 Lymph Node Drainage
- •6.1.1.3 Recurrence and Complications
- •6.1.2 Non-squamous Cell Carcinomas of the Vagina
- •6.1.2.1 Adenocarcinoma
- •6.1.2.2 Melanoma
- •6.1.2.3 Sarcomas
- •6.1.2.4 Lymphoma
- •6.2 Vulvar Malignancies
- •6.2.1 Vulvar Carcinoma
- •6.2.2 Melanoma
- •6.2.3 Lymphoma
- •6.2.4 Aggressive Angiomyxoma of the Vulva
- •7 Vaginal Cuff Disease
- •7.1 MRI Findings
- •8 Foreign Bodies
- •References
- •Imaging of Lymph Nodes
- •1 Background
- •3 Technique
- •3.1.1 Intravenous Unspecific Contrast Agents
- •3.1.2 Intravenous Tissue-Specific Contrast Agents
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •2.1.1 Imaging Findings
- •2.1.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •2.1.3 Value of Imaging
- •2.2 Pelvic Inflammatory
- •2.2.1 Imaging Findings
- •2.3 Hydropyosalpinx
- •2.3.1 Imaging Findings
- •2.3.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •2.4 Tubo-ovarian Abscess
- •2.4.1 Imaging Findings
- •2.4.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •2.4.3 Value of Imaging
- •2.5 Ovarian Torsion
- •2.5.1 Imaging Findings
- •2.5.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •2.5.3 Diagnostic Value
- •2.6 Ectopic Pregnancy
- •2.6.1 Imaging Findings
- •2.6.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •2.6.3 Value of Imaging
- •3.1 Pelvic Congestion Syndrome
- •3.1.1 Imaging Findings
- •3.1.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •3.1.3 Value of Imaging
- •3.2 Ovarian Vein Thrombosis
- •3.2.1 Imaging Findings
- •3.2.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •3.2.3 Value of Imaging
- •3.3 Appendicitis
- •3.3.1 Imaging Findings
- •3.3.2 Value of Imaging
- •3.4 Diverticulitis
- •3.4.1 Imaging Findings
- •3.4.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •3.4.3 Value of Imaging
- •3.5 Epiploic Appendagitis
- •3.5.1 Imaging Findings
- •3.5.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •3.5.3 Value of Imaging
- •3.6 Crohn’s Disease
- •3.6.1 Imaging Findings
- •3.6.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •3.6.3 Value of Imaging
- •3.7 Rectus Sheath Hematoma
- •3.7.1 Imaging Findings
- •3.7.2 Differential Diagnosis
- •3.7.3 Value of Imaging
- •References
- •MRI of the Pelvic Floor
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Imaging Techniques
- •3.1 Indications
- •3.2 Patient Preparation
- •3.3 Patient Instruction
- •3.4 Patient Positioning
- •3.5 Organ Opacification
- •3.6 Sequence Protocols
- •4 MR Image Analysis
- •4.1 Bony Pelvis
- •5 Typical Findings
- •5.1 Anterior Compartment
- •5.2 Middle Compartment
- •5.3 Posterior Compartment
- •5.4 Levator Ani Muscle
- •References
- •Evaluation of Infertility
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Imaging Techniques
- •2.1 Hysterosalpingography
- •2.1.1 Cycle Considerations
- •2.1.2 Technical Considerations
- •2.1.3 Side Effects and Complications
- •2.1.5 Pathological Findings
- •2.1.6 Limitations of HSG
- •2.2.1 Cycle Considerations
- •2.2.2 Technical Considerations
- •2.2.2.1 Normal and Abnormal Anatomy
- •2.2.3 Accuracy
- •2.2.4 Side Effects and Complications
- •2.2.5 Limitations of Sono-HSG
- •2.3 Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •2.3.1 Indications
- •2.3.2 Technical Considerations
- •2.3.3 Limitations
- •3 Ovulatory Dysfunction
- •4 Pituitary Adenoma
- •5 Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
- •7 Uterine Disorders
- •7.1 Müllerian Duct Anomalies
- •7.1.1 Class I: Hypoplasia or Agenesis
- •7.1.2 Class II: Unicornuate
- •7.1.3 Class III: Didelphys
- •7.1.4 Class IV: Bicornuate
- •7.1.5 Class V: Septate
- •7.1.6 Class VI: Arcuate
- •7.1.7 Class VII: Diethylstilbestrol Related
- •7.2 Adenomyosis
- •7.3 Leiomyoma
- •7.4 Endometriosis
- •References
- •MR Pelvimetry
- •1 Clinical Background
- •1.3.1 Diagnosis
- •1.3.2.1 Cephalopelvic Disproportion
- •1.3.4 Inadequate Progression of Labor due to Inefficient Contraction (“the Powers”)
- •2.2 Palpation of the Pelvis
- •3 MR Pelvimetry
- •3.2 MR Imaging Protocol
- •3.3 Image Analysis
- •3.4 Reference Values for MR Pelvimetry
- •5 Indications for Pelvimetry
- •References
- •MR Imaging of the Placenta
- •2 Imaging of the Placenta
- •3 MRI Protocol
- •4 Normal Appearance
- •4.1 Placenta Variants
- •5 Placenta Adhesive Disorders
- •6 Placenta Abruption
- •7 Solid Placental Masses
- •9 Future Directions
- •References
- •Erratum to: Endometrial Cancer
MRI of the Pelvic Floor |
425 |
|
|
with urinary incontinence or organ prolapse (Gufler et al. 1999b). Cystourethrography alone missed all rectoceles, which were correctly depicted by colpocystorectography and MRI, whereas enteroceles could only be diagnosed by MRI. Comparing colpocystorectography in the upright and supine position with functional MRI no significant difference between MRI and colpocystorectography in either positions was found (Gufler et al. 1999b). Kelvin et al. compared cystocolpoproctography with opacification of all relevant organs to functional MRI in the supine position with opacification of the bladder, vagina, and rectum and added also a post-toilet phase (Kelvin et al. 2000). They conclude that MR imaging and cystocolpoproctography showed similar detection rates for prolapse of pelvic organs but emphasized the strength of MRI as revealing all pelvic organs and pelvic floor musculature. In the ACR recommendations, if available upright MRI is favored over supine position (Pannu et al. 2015). Some studies using a midfield system of 0.5 T with an open magnet configuration are published (Kim 2011; Lone et al. 2016; Lienemann et al. 1997; Sprenger et al. 2000). The latter offers the advantage of evaluating the patient in an upright position, but were limited by a reduced imaging quality due to the surface coil design and limited spatial and temporal resolution. Bertschinger et al. showed that MRI in sitting position was not superior to supine MRI in depiction of clinically relevant bladder prolapse or rectoceles (Bertschinger et al. 2002). Similarly Fielding et al. reported a higher degree of pelvic floor laxity for sitting position that was not superior to supine MRI (Fielding et al. 1998). A recent study compared MRI in supine versus sitting position using a 0.25 T open configuration and 1.5 T MRI unit in 31 (27 females) patients (van Iersel et al. 2017). At rest and defecation no significant difference of the anorectal junction and no significant difference in percentages of cystoceles were found. However, a statistical difference was documented in comparing the grade of descent. These authors conclude that MRI may overestimate the descent due to the more cranial position of the pelvic organs in supine position at rest (van Iersel et al. 2017).
The data on MRI to assess intususceptions are conflicting. Compared with conventional techniques MRI tends to underestimate intussusception which may be due to nonphysiological supine position, but global information of the pelvic floor can be rendered (Pannu et al. 2015; van Iersel et al. 2017). A recent study assessing 41 patients reported superiority of conventional defecography for diagnosing rectoceles and enteroceles, but found MRI more effective for identifying intussusceptions (van Iersel et al. 2017). Advantages of MRI in assessing rectal intussusception include differentiation of mucosal from full-thickness involvement, functional information of pelvic floor movement, and depiction of coexisting pathologies (Mortele 2007). Similarly in suspected dyssynergetic pelvic floor syndrome the value of MRI is rendering comprehensive information. It visualizes the typical features of abnormal defecation and also aids in elucidating other causes of pelvic outlet obstruction (Reiner et al. 2011; Mortele 2007; Bolog and Weishaupt 2005).
References
Alt CD, Brocker KA, Lenz F, Sohn C, Kauczor HU, Hallscheidt P (2014) MRI findings before and after prolapse surgery. Acta Radiol 55:495–504
Bazot M, Gasner A, Ballester M, Daraï E (2011) Value of thin-section oblique axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance images to assess uterosacral ligament endometriosis. Hum Reprod 26:346–5350
Bertschinger KM, Hetzer FH, Roos JE et al (2002) Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor performed with patient sitting in an open-magnet unit versus with patient supine in a closed-magnet unit. Radiology 223:501–508
Bitti GT, Argiolas GM, Ballicu N, Caddeo E et al (2014) Pelvic floor failure: MR imaing evaluation of anatomic and functional abnormalities. Radiographics 34:429–448
Bo K, Lilleas F, Talseth T et al (2001) Dynamic MRI of the pelvic floor muscles in an upright sitting position. NeurourolUrodyn 20:167–174
Bolog N, Weishaupt D (2005) Dynamic MR imaging of putlet obstruction. Clin Imaging 14:293–302
Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17
Carr LK, Herschorn S, Leonhardt C (1996) Magnetic resonance imaging after intraurethral collagen injected for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 155:1253–1255
426 |
R. Forstner and A. Lienemann |
|
|
Comiter CV, Vasavada SP, Barbaric ZL et al (1999) Grading pelvic prolapse and pelvic floor relaxation using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 54:454–454
Delemarre JB, Kruyt RH, Doornbos J et al (1994) Anterior rectocele: assessment with radiographic defecography, dynamic magnetic resonance imaging, and physical examination. Dis Colon Rectum 37:249–259
Dietz HP (2010) Pelvic floor ultrasound: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202:321–334
El Sayed R, MSE FMMM, Azim MSA (2008) Pelvic floor dysfunction: assessment with combined analysis of static and dynamic MR imagin g findings. Radiology 248:518–530
El Sayed RF, Alt CD, Maccioni F et al (2016) Magnetic Resonance Imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction-joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR pelvic floorworkinggroup.EurRadiol.doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4471- Elshazly WG, Nekady AEE, Hassan H (2010) Role of dynamic MRI in management of obstructed defecation
case series. Int J Surg 8:2074–2282
Faccioli N, Comai A, Mainardi P, Perandini S, Farah M, Pozzi-Mucelli R (2010) Defecography: a practical approach. Diagn Interv Radiol 16:209–216
Fielding JR (2002) Practical MR imaging of female pelvic floor weakness. Radiographics 22:295–304
Fielding JR (2003) MR imaging of pelvic floor relaxation. Radiol Clin North Am 41:747–756
Fielding JR, Griffiths DJ, Versi E et al (1998) MR imaging of pelvic floor continence mechanisms in the supine and sitting positions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:1607–1610
Flusberg M, Sahni VA, Erturk SM, Mortele KJ (2011) Dynamic MR defecography: assessment of the usefulness of the defecation phase. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W394–W399
Goei R, Kemerink G (1990) Radiation dose in defecography. Radiology 176:137–139
Goh V, Halligan S, Kaplan G et al (2000) Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor in asymptomatic subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:661–666
Goodrich MA, Webb MJ, King BF et al (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor relaxation: dynamic analysis and evaluation of patients before and after surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol 82:883–891
Gufler H, Laubenberger J, DeGregorio G et al (1999) Pelvic floor descent: dynamic MR imaging using a half-Fourier RARE sequence. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:378–383
Gufler H, Ohde A, Grau G et al (2004) Colpocystoproctography in the upright and supine positions correlated with dynamic MRI of the pelvic floor. Eur J Radiol 51:41–47
Halligan S, Bartram C, Hall C, Wingate J (1996) Enterocele revealed by simultaneous evacuation proctography and peritoneography: does “defecation block” exist? Am J Roentgenol 167:461–466
Halligan S, Malouf A, Batram CI, Marshall M, Hollings N, Kamm MA (2001) Predictive value of impaired
evacuation at proctopgraphy in diagnosing anismus. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:633–636
Handa V, Pannu H, Siddique S et al (2003) Architectural differences in the bony pelvis of women with and without pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol 102:1283–1290
Healy JC, Halligan S, Reznek RH et al (1997a) Dynamic MR imaging compared with evacuation proctography when evaluating anorectal configuration and pelvic floor movement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:775–779 Healy JC, Halligan S, Reznek RH et al (1997b) Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvic floor in patients with
obstructed defaecation. Br J Surg 84:1555–1558 Hjartardottir S, Nilsson J, Petersen C et al (1997) The
female pelvic floor: a dome – not a basin. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 76:567–571
Hodroff MA, Stolpen AH, Denson MA et al (2002) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: the relationship with the pelvic organ prolapse quantification staging system. J Urol 167:1353–1355 Hoyte L, Ratiu P (2001) Linear measurements in 2-dimensional pelvic floor imaging: the impact of slice tilt angles on measurement reproducibility. Am
J Obstet Gynecol 185:537–544
Huddleston HT, Dunnihoo DR, Huddleston PM 3rd et al (1995) Magnetic resonance imaging of defects in DeLancey’s vaginal support levels I, II, and III. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172:1778–1782; discussion 1782–1784
van Iersel JJ, Formijne Jonkers HA, Verheijen PM, Broeders IAMJ, Heggelman BG et al (2017) Comparison of dynamic magnetic resonance defaecography with rectal contrast and conventional defaecography for posterior pelvic floor compartment prolapse. Colorectal Dis 19:O46–O53. doi:10.1111/ codi.13563
Jundt K, Peschers U, Kentenich H (2015) The investigation and treatment of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Dtsch Arztebl Int 112:564–574
Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hale DS et al (2000) Female pelvic organ prolapse: a comparison of triphasic dynamic MR imaging and triphasic fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:81–88
Kenton K, Mueller ER (2006) The global burden of female pelvic flor disorders. BJU Int 98(Suppl 1):1–5 Kim AY (2011) How to interpret a functional or motility test-defecography. J Neurogastroenterol Motil
17:416–420
vKruyt RH, Delemarre JB, Doornbos J et al (1991) Normal anorectum: dynamic MR imaging anatomy. Radiology 179:159–163
Kuhn RJ, Hollyock VE (1982) Observations on the anatomy of the rectovaginal pouch and septum. Obstet Gynecol 59:445–447
Law YM, Fielding JR (2008) MRI of pelvic floor dysfunction: review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:S45–S53 Lienemann A (1998) An easy approach to functional
magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor disorders. Tech Coloproctol 2:131–134
MRI of the Pelvic Floor |
427 |
|
|
Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A et al (1996) MR colpocystorectography: a new dynamic method for assessing pelvic floor descent and prolapse in women. Acta Radiol 6:182–186
Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A et al (1997) Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic-floor descent. Eur Radiol 7:1309–1317
Lienemann A, Sprenger D, Janssen U et al (2000a) Functional MRI of the pelvic floor. The methods and reference values. Radiologe 40:458–464
Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A et al (2000b) Diagnosing enteroceles using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Dis Colon Rectum 43:205–212; discussion 212–213
Lone F, Sultan AH, Stankiewicz A, Thakar R (2016) Interobserver agreement of multicompartment ultrasound in the assessment of pelvic floor anatomy. Br J Radiol. doi:10.1259/bjr.20150704. Epub 2016 Jan 22
Macura KJ, Genadry RR, Bluemeke DA (2006) MR imaging of the female urethra and supporting ligaments in assessment of urinary incontinence: spectrum of abnormalities. Radiographics 26:1135–1149
Maglinte DD, Bartram CI, Hale DA, Park J, Kohli MD, Robb BW, Romano S, Lappas JC (2011) Functional imaging of the pelvic floor. Radiology 258:23–39
Maigne JY, Pigeau I, Roger B (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging findings in the painful adult coccyx. Eur Spine J 21:2097–2104
Mann DKP (2014) What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the assessment of pelvcic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol 25:451–455
Mortele KJ (2007) Dynamic MR defecography of the posterior compartment: indications, techniques and MR features. Eur J Radiol 61(2007):462–472
Pannu HK, Kaufman HS, Cundiff GW et al (2000) Dynamic MR imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: spectrum of abnormalities. Radiographics 20:1567–1582
Pannu HC, Glanc P, Bhosale PR, Harisinghani MG et al (2015) ACR appropriateness criteris pelvic floor dysfunction. J Am Coll Radiol 12:134–142
Pizzoferrato AC, Nyangoh Timoh K, Fritel X, Zareski E (2014) Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging and pelvic floor disorders: how and when? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 181:259–266
Reiner CS, Tutuian R, Pohl D, Marincek B, Weishaupt D (2011) MR defecography in patients with dysynergetic defecation:spectrum of imaing findings and diagnstic value. Br J Radiol 84:136–144
Retzky SS, Rogers jr RM, Richardson AC (1996) Anatomy of female pelvic support. In: Brubaker LT, Saclarides TJ (eds) The female pelvic floor disorders of function and support. F.A. Davis Company, Philadelphia, pp 3–21
Rogers RG, Fashokun TB (2016) Pelvic organ prolapse in women: an overview of the epidemiology, risk factors, clinical manifestations, and management. www.uptodate.com
Schreyer CA, Paetzel C, Fürst A et al (2012) Dynamic MR defecography in 10 asymptomatic volunteers. World J Gastroenterol 18:6836–6842
Shorvon PJ, McHugh S, Diamant NE et al (1989) Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications. Gut 30:1737–1717
Singh K, Reid WM, Berger LA (2001) Assessment and grading of pelvic organ prolapsed by use of dynamic resonance imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:71–77 Singh K, Reid WM, Berger LA (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging of normal levator ani anatomy and
function. Obstet Gynecol 99:433–438
Sprenger D, Lienemann A, Anthuber C et al (2000) Functional MRI of the pelvic floor: its normal anatomy and pathological findings. Radiologe 40:451–457
Swift SE (2000) The distribution of pelvicorgan support in a population of femalesubjects seen for routine gynecologichealth care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285
Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A et al (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:795–806
Tijdink MM, Vierhout ME, Heesakkers JP, Withagen MI (2011) Surgical management of mesh related complications after prior pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh. Int Urogynecol J 22:1395–1404
Vanbeckevoort D, Van Hoe L, Oyen R et al (1999) Pelvic floor descent in females: comparative study of colpocystodefecography and dynamic fast MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:373–377
Woodfield CA, Hampton BS, Sung V, Brody JM (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: comparing pubococcygeal and midpubic lines with clinical staging. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:695–701
Woodfield CA, Krisnamoorthy S, Hampton BS, Brody JM (2010) Imaging pelvic floor disorders: trend toward comprehensive MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1640–1649
Yang A, Mostwin JL, Rosenshein NB et al (1991) Pelvic floor descent in women: dynamic evaluation with fast MR imaging and cinematic display. Radiology 179:25–33
Yoshioka K, Matsui Y, Yamada O et al (1991) Physiologic and anatomic assessment of patients with rectocele. Dis Colon Rectum 34:704–708