Magnetic resonance imaging for uterine and vaginal anomalies

Department of Radiology (Pediatric), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology (Impact Factor: 2.07). 08/2009; 21(5):379-89. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283307c3e
Source: PubMed


Pediatric pelvic MRI has had dramatic advances in the past few years. This review documents studies demonstrating the accuracy of MRI for the evaluation of uterine and vaginal anomalies and discusses the salient changes to MRI methods that are particularly applicable to evaluating the pediatric patient with these developmental anomalies.
MRI has high accuracy for evaluation of uterine and vaginal anomalies. Significant advances, such as volumetric imaging, increased resolution, decreased motion artifacts, and shorter examination time, have increased the access and utility of MRI for pediatric patients.
MRI techniques have evolved markedly in the past several years, providing a robust method of evaluating uterine and vaginal anomalies in the pediatric patient.

6 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The VCSEL tile was bonded on the scribe line between IC and IC becaue there was no bonding area for the VCSEL tile on the CMOS IC. Before transferring VCSEL tile, the scribe line was buried with cured polyimide of approximately 5 μm thick to planarize the surface. The VCSEL and the CMOS IC were connected each other by direct drawn nano particle silver paste using a capillary. After baking the drawn paste line at 200°C for 1 hour in atmosphere, the silver electrode lines 0.8 μm in thickness were obtained.
    Lasers and Electro-Optics Society, 2003. LEOS 2003. The 16th Annual Meeting of the IEEE; 11/2003
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With advances occurring in medicine on a daily basis, it was only a matter of time before essential gynecological investigations, such as ultrasound, were modified. Many clinicians remain unconvinced by its reputed advantages and 3D ultrasound is not without disadvantages. These mainly relate to the cost implications and training requirements. 3D ultrasound imaging is still at a relatively early stage in terms of its role as a day-to-day imaging modality in gynecology and reproductive medicine. 3D imaging has several obvious benefits that relate to an improved spatial orientation and the demonstration of multiplanar views, of which the coronal plane is particularly useful. It offers a more objective and reproducible measurement of volume and vascularity of the region of interest, and an improved assessment of normal and pathological pelvic organs through further postprocessing modalities, including tomographic ultrasound imaging and various rendering modalities. It also has the benefit of offering reduced scanning time, the option of teleconsultation and storage of images for re-evaluation. However, other than its application in the assessment and differentiation of uterine anomalies, there is very little evidence demonstrating that 3D ultrasound results in a clinically relevant benefit or negates the need for further investigation. Future work should ensure that 3D ultrasound is compared with conventional imaging in randomized trials where the observer is blind to the outcome, only after which will we truly be able to evaluate its role in an evidence-based manner.
    Women s Health 10/2008; 4(5):501-16. DOI:10.2217/17455057.4.5.501
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current proposals for classifying female genital anomalies seem to be associated with limitations in effective categorization, creating the need for a new classification system that is as simple as possible, clear and accurate in its definitions, comprehensive, and correlated with patients' clinical presentation, prognosis, and treatment on an evidence-based foundation. Although creating a new classification system is not an easy task, it is feasible when taking into account the experience gained from applying the existing classification systems, mainly that of the American Fertility Society.
    Fertility and sterility 03/2010; 94(2):401-7. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.030 · 4.59 Impact Factor
Show more