Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging of Uterine Disease-Related Pain

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pain Imaging

  • 1228 Accesses

Abstract

Pelvic pain is a frequent symptom and often refers to pain in the region of women’s internal reproductive organs; especially in young women secondary to cyclical hormonal changes and, therefore, related to menstrual issues. In general, this pelvic pain does not need any diagnostic imaging test.

There are, however, different pathologies (benign and malignant), that affect the uterus and whose first symptom is pain. Before performing a radiology diagnostic test; a physical and gynecological examination, gestational history of the patient, and blood and urine test analysis are necessary to decide which diagnostic test could be more accurate. Pelvic pain during pregnancy can be a normal part of the process as the body changes to accommodate the growing baby. There are many harmless causes of pain in pregnancy, but some may be more serious, such as placental abruption, that might need urgent treatment.

Ultrasound is the first diagnostic test to be performed on a woman (pregnant or not) in which uterine (and/or gynecological) pathology is suspected.

If the presenting symptoms indicate an urgent pathology (e.g., uterine rupture, trauma injuries, abscesses), the first diagnostic method, given its accessibility, is computed tomography. It is also the first diagnostic method in elderly women, when a non-gynecological entity is suspected, such as diverticulitis.

Magnetic resonance imaging is the second diagnostic method indicated to investigate all entities that cause chronic pain, for diagnosing and assessing the extension of the process, for example, in adenomyosis. In malignant uterine diseases, Magnetic resonance imaging is indicated for detecting, preoperative staging, and tailored treatment for specific malignant disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

2D:

Two-dimensional

3D:

Three-dimensional

ACR:

The American College of Radiology

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

ALARA:

As low as reasonably achievable

ASMR:

The American Society of Reproductive Medicine

CT:

Computed tomography

DCE:

Dynamic contrast enhanced

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

ESHRE/ESGE:

The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy

ESS:

Endometrial stroma sarcoma

ESUR:

The European Society of Urogenital Radiology

FIGO:

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics

FOV:

Field of view

Gd:

Gadolinium

GRE:

Gradient echo

HPV:

Human papillomavirus

HSG:

Hysterosalpingography

ICM:

Iodinated contrast media

IUD:

Intrauterine devices

LDH:

Lactate dehydrogenase

LMS:

Leiomyosarcomas

MDA:

Müllerian ducts anomalies

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

PET:

Positron emission tomography

PID:

Pelvic inflammatory disease

T1WI:

T1-weighted imaging

T2WI:

T2-weighted imaging

TOF:

time-of flight

TAPS:

Traumatic abruptio placental scale

UAE:

Uterine artery embolization

UES:

Undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma

US:

Ultrasound

VCUAM:

Vagina, cervix, uterus, adnexa, and associated malformations

β-hCG:

Beta-human chorionic gonadotropin

References

  1. Knoepp US, Mazza MB, Chong ST, Wasnik AP. MR imaging of pelvic emergencies in women. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25(3):503–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, Chen KC, Mayo-Smith WW. Abdominal pain in pregnancy: diagnoses and imaging unique to pregnancy-review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(Suppl 6):14–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):1577–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A. Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):233–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C, Kinkel K, Cunha TM, Guerra A, et al. European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2765–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nougaret S, Lakhman Y, Vargas HA, Colombo PE, Fujii S, Reinhold C, et al. From staging to prognostication: achievements and challenges of MR imaging in the assessment of endometrial cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25:611–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel-Lippmann K, Robbins J, Barroilhet L, Anderson B, Sadowski EA, Boyum J. MR imaging of cervical cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25(3):635–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McEvoy SH, Nougaret S, Abu-Rustum NR, Vargas HA, Sadowski EA, Menias CO, et al. Fertility-sparing for young patients with gynecologic cancer: how MRI can guide patient selection prior to conservative management. Abdom Radiol. 2017;42:2488–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Addley H, Moyle P, Freeman S. Diffusion-weighted imaging in gynaecological malignancy. Clin Radiol. 2017;72(11):981–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, Takahara T, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia. 2009;11:102–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Nougaret S, Tirumani SH, Addley H, Pandey H, Sala E, Reinhold C. Pearls and pitfalls in MRI of gynecologic malignancy with diffusion-weighted technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):261–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andreano A, Rechichi G, Rebora P, Sironi S, Valsecchi MG, Galimberti S. MR diffusion imaging for preoperative staging of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:1327–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakamura K, Imafuku N, Nishida T, Niwa I, Joja I, Hongo A, et al. Measurement of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) of the primary tumor and CA125 are predictive of disease recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:335–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, Mitchell DG, Reinhold C. The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology. 2013;266(3):717–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Santos P, Cunha TM. Uterine sarcomas: clinical presentation and MRI features. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015;21(1):4–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thomassin-Naggara I, Dechoux S, Bonneau C, Morel A, Rouzier R, Carette MF, et al. How to differentiate benign from malignant myometrial tumours using MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2306–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sala E, Rockall A, Rangarajan D, Kubik-Huch RA. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the female pelvis. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(3):367–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wakefield JC, Downey K, Kyriazi S, de Souza NM. New MR techniques in gynecologic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):249–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Park SB, Moon MH, Sung CK, Oh S, Lee YH. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of endometrial cancer: optimizing the imaging delay for tumour-myometrium contrast. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(11):2795–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fujii S, Kido A, Baba T, Fujimoto K, Daido S, Matsumura N, et al. Subendometrial enhancement and peritumoral enhancement for assessing endometrial cancer on dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(4):581–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bennett GL, Slywotzky CM, Giovanniello G. Gynecologic causes of acute pelvic pain: spectrum of CT findings. Radiographics. 2002;22(4):785–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Masselli G, Derchi L, McHugo J, Rockall A, Vock P, Weston M, et al. Acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnancy: ESUR recommendations. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(12):3485–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. The American College of Radiology (ACR): Practice guideline for imaging pregnant or potentially pregnant adolescents and women with ionizing radiation. 2013. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/pregnant-pts.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2017.

  24. The European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR): 9.0 Contrast media guidelines. 2017. https://www.esur.org/esur-guidelines/. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.

  25. The American College of Radiology (ACR): Manual on Contrast Media v10.3, Version 10.3. 2017. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Clinical-Resources/Contrast_Media.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.

  26. Baheti AD, Nicola R, Bennett GL, Bordia R, Moshiri M, Katz DS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal and pelvic pain in the pregnant patient. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2016;24(2):403–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pedrosa I, Zeikus EA, Levine D, Rofsky NM. MR imaging of acute right lower quadrant pain in pregnant and nonpregnant patients. Radiographics. 2007;27:721–43. discussion 743–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Spalluto LB, Woodfield CA, DeBenedectis CM, Lazarus E. MR imaging evaluation of abdominal pain during pregnancy: appendicitis and other nonobstetric causes. Radiographics. 2012;32(2):317–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Leyendecker JR, Gorengaut V, Brown JJ. Imaging of maternal diseases of the abdomen and pelvis during pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period. Radiographics. 2004;24(5):1301–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Saphier NB, Kopelman TR. Traumatic abruptio placenta scale (TAPS): a proposed grading system of computed tomography evaluation of placental abruption in the trauma patient. Emerg Radiol. 2014;21(1):17–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bernardi M, Lazzeri L, Perelli F, Reis FM, Petraglia F. Dysmenorrhea and related disorders. F1000Res. 2017;6:1645.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Burnett M, Lemyre M. Primary dysmenorrhea consensus guideline. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39(7):585–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Olpin JD, Moeni A, Willmore RJ, Hellbrun ME. MR imaging of Müllerian fusion anomalies. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25(3):563–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Buttram VC Jr, Gibbons WE. Müllerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (An analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32(1):40–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:944–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Oppelt P, Renner SP, Brucker S, Strissel PL, Strick R, Oppelt PG, et al. The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex-associated Malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1493–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2032–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, Gordts S, Exacoustos C, Van Schoubroeck D, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hall-Craggs MA, Williams CE, Pattison SH, Kirkham AP, Creighton SM. Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 2013;269(3):787–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Van der Byl G, di Giacomo V, Miele V. Herlyn Werner Wunderlich syndrome (HWWS): an unusual presentation of acute abdominal pain. J Ultrasound. 2014;17(2):171–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Letts M, Haasbeek J. Hematocolpos as a cause of back pain in premenarchal adolescents. Pediatr Orthop. 1990;10:731–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osório F, Alves J, Setúbal A, Guerra A. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8(6):549–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Rainhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, Wang L, Atri M, Siegelman ES, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1999;19:147–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kassam Z, Petkovska I, Wang CL, Trinh AM, Kamaya A. Benign gynecologic conditions of the uterus. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25(3):577–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sielgeman ES, Oliver ER. MR imaging of endometriosis: ten imaging pearls. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1675–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopler J, Antoine JM, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(11):2427–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sorensen S, Ledertough S, Olensen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(3):588–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Murase E, Siegelman ES, Outwater EK, Perez-Jaffe LA, Tureck RW. Uterine leiomyomas: histopathologic features, MR imaging findings, differential diagnosis, and treatment. Radiographics. 1999;19(5):1179–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Gupta S, Jose J, Manyonda I. Clinical presentation of fibroids. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;22(4):615–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Deshmukh SP, Gonsalves CF, Guglielmo FF, Mitchell DG. Role of MR imaging of uterine leiomyomas before and after embolization. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):251–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Revzin MV, Mathur M, Dave HB, Macer ML, Spektor M. Pelvic inflammatory disease: multimodality imaging approach with clinical-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2016;36(5):1579–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Soper DE. Pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(2 Pt 1):419–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID): CDC fact sheet—detailed version. 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/std/pid/stdfact-pid-detailed.htm. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.

  54. Wildenberg JC, Yam BL, Langer JE, Jones LP. US of the nongravid cervix with multimodality imaging correlation: normal appearance, pathologic conditions, and diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics. 2016;36:596–617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsumoda H, Yoshikawa H, Itai Y. MR imaging of the uterine cervix: imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2003;23(2):525–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Choi PW. Colouterine fistula caused by diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2012;28(6):321–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Rezvani M, Shaaban AM. Fallopian tube disease in the nonpregnant patient. Radiographics. 2011;31(2):527–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Silberzweig JE, Powell DK, Matsumoto AH, Spies JB. Management of uterine fibroids: a focus on uterine-sparing interventional techniques. Radiology. 2016;280(3):675–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Roche O, Chavan N, Aquilina J, Rockall A. Radiological appearances of gynaecological emergencies. Insights Imaging. 2012;3(3):265–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Munro MG, Critchley HO, Fraser IS. FIGO Menstrual Disorders Working Group. The FIGO classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2204–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Iraha Y, Okada M, Iraha R, Azama K, Yamashiro T, Tsubakimoto M, et al. CT and MR imaging of gynecologic emergencies. Radiographics. 2017;37(5):1569–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Casillas J, Joseph RC, Guerra JJJ. CT appearance of uterine leiomyomas. Radiographics. 1990;10(6):999–1007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Cancer center treatment of America: Uterine cancer symptoms. https://www.cancercenter.com/uterine-cancer/symptoms/. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.

  64. Cancer.net: Uterine Cancer: Symptoms and Signs. https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/uterine-cancer/symptoms-and-signs. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.

  65. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, editors. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Meissnitzer M, Forstner R. MRI of endometrium cancer - how we do it. Cancer Imaging. 2016;16:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM, Oleaga L, Cunha TM, Bergman A, et al. Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(7):1565–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). TNM classification of malignant tumours. 8th ed. Oxford, UK, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & sons, Inc; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Freeman SJ, Aly AM, Kataoka MY, Addley HC, Reinhold C, Sala E. The revised FIGO staging system for uterine malignancies: implications for MR imaging. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1805–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Nougaret S, Reinhold C, Alsharif SS, Addley H, Arceneau J, Molinari N, et al. Endometrial cancer: combined MR volumetry and diffusion-weighted imaging for assessment of myometrial and lymphovascular invasion and tumor grade. Radiology. 2015;276(3):797–808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Colombo N, Preti E, Landoni F, Carinelli S, Colombo A, Marini C, et al. Endometrial cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(Suppl 6):33–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. FIGO Cancer report 2018. Int J Gynecol Obstet (2018);143(Suppl. 2): 22–36.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Patel-Lippmann K, Robbins JB, Barroilhet L, Anderson B, Sadowski EA, Boyum J. MR imaging of cervical cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25(3):635–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Noël P, Dubé M, Plante M, St-Laurent G. Early cervical carcinoma and fertility-sparing treatment options: MR imaging as a tool in patient selection and a follow-up modality. Radiographics. 2014;34(4):1099–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Dappa E, Elger T, Hasenburg A, Düber C, Battista MJ, Hötker AM. The value of advanced MRI techniques in the assessment of cervical cancer: a review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8(5):471–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Wu TI, Yen TC, Lai CH. Clinical presentation and diagnosis of uterine sarcoma, including imaging. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;25(6):681–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Prat J. FIGO staging for uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;104:177–8. (Prat J. Erratum in: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;106:277).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Lakhman Y, Veeraraghavan H, Chaim J, et al. Differentiation of uterine leiomyosarcoma from atypical leiomyoma: diagnostic accuracy of qualitative MR imaging features and feasibility of texture analysis. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2903–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Frey NV, Svoboda J, Andreadis C, Tsai DE, Schuster SJ, Elstrom R, et al. Primary lymphomas of the cervix and uterus: the University of Pennsylvania’s experience and a review of the literature. Leuk Lymphoma. 2006;47(9):1894–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Alves Vieira MA, Cunha TM. Primary lymphomas of the female genital tract: imaging findings. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014;20:110–5.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Mazur MT, Hsuch S, Gersell DJ. Metastases to the female genital tract: analysis of 325 cases. Cancer. 1984;53(9):1978–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Limoine NR, Hall PA. Epithelial tumors metastatic to the uterine cervix. A study of 33 cases and review of the literature. Cancer. 1986;57(10):2002–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Jeong YY, Kang HK, Park JG, Choi HS. CT features of uterine torsion. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(Suppl 6):249–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Karavani G, Picard R, Elami-Suzin M, Mankuta D. Complete uterine torsion diagnosed during an elective caesarean section following failed external cephalic version: a case report. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37:673–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Salani R, Theiler RN, Lindsay M. Uterine torsion and fetal bradycardia associated with external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(3 Pt 2):820–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Ulu I, Günes MS, Kiran G, Gülsen MS. A rare cause of placental abruption: uterine torsion. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(1):6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Kremer JA, van Dongen PW. Torsion of the pregnant uterus with a change in placental localization on ultrasound; a case report. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1989;31(3):273–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Peri N, Graham D, Levine D. Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:1389–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Nowitzki KM, Hoimes ML, Chen B, Zheng LZ, Kim YH. Ultrasonography of intrauterine devices. Ultrasonography. 2015;34(3):183–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Potter AW, Chandrasekhar CA. US and CT evaluation of acute pelvic pain of gynecologic origin in nonpregnant pre-menopausal patients. Radiographics. 2008;28:1645–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Petta CA, Faundes D, Pimentel E, Diaz J, Bahamondes L. The use of vaginal ultrasound to identify copper T IUDs at high risk of expulsion. Contraception. 1996;54(5):287–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Morales-Rosello J. Spontaneous upward movement of lowly placed T-shaped IUDs. Contraception. 2005;72(6):430–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Goswami D, Ravi AK, Sharma A. Missing IUCD strings: role of Imaging in locating the misplaced device. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(4):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, Lähteenmäki P, heikinheimo O. Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinical course and treatment. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(6):1546–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Plunk M, Lee JH, Kani K, Dighe M. Imaging of postpartum complications: a multimodality review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:143–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Doubilet PM, Benson CB, Bourne T, Blaivas M, The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Multispecialty Panel on Early First Trimester Diagnosis of Miscarriage and Exclusion of a Viable Intrauterine Pregnancy, et al. Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(15):1443–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Rodgers SK, Chang C, DeBardeleben JT, Horrow MM. Normal and abnormal US findings in early first-trimester pregnancy: review of the society of radiologists in ultrasound 2012 consensus panel recommendations. Radiographics. 2015;35(7):2135–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Fadl S, Moshiri M, Fligner CL, Katz DS, Dighe M. Placental imaging: normal appearance with review of pathologic findings. Radiographics. 2017;37(3):979–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Elsayes KM, Trout AT, Friedkin AM, Liu PS, Bude RO, Platt JF, et al. Imaging of the placenta: a multimodality pictorial review. Radiographics. 2009;29(5):1371–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Masselli G, Brunelli R, Di Tola M, Anceschi M, Gualdi G. MR Imaging in the evaluation of placental abruption: correlation with sonographic findings. Radiology. 2011;259(1):222–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Chukus A, Tirada N, Restrepo R, Reddy NI. Uncommon implantation sites of ectopic pregnancy: thinking beyond the complex adnexal mass. Radiographics. 2015;35(3):946–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Zucchini S, Marra E. Diagnosis of emergencies/urgencies in gynecology and during the first trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound. 2014;17(1):41–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Lee R, Dupuis C, Chen B, Smith A, Kim YH. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy in the emergency setting. Ultrasonography. 2018;37(1):78–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Dr. Marta Rodriguez-Alvarez (radiologist), Dr. Roberto Gonzalez-Boubeta, Emilio Couceiro-Naveira, and Orlando Valenzuela-Besada (gynecologists), all of them from our hospital, for all the help given in the compilation of some images for this chapter. Thank you.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo (CHUVI), Hospital Álvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain

    Maria Milagros Otero-García, Patricia Blanco-Lobato & Maria Cristina Prado-Monzo

Authors
  1. Maria Milagros Otero-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricia Blanco-Lobato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Cristina Prado-Monzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Milagros Otero-García .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Maria Assunta Cova

  2. Department of Radiology, Maggiore Hospital, Trieste, Italy

    Fulvio Stacul

21.1 Electronic Supplementary Material

Data 21.1

(PPTX 398192 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Otero-García, M.M., Blanco-Lobato, P., Prado-Monzo, M.C. (2019). Imaging of Uterine Disease-Related Pain. In: Cova, M., Stacul, F. (eds) Pain Imaging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99822-0_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99822-0_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99821-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99822-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation