Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Efficiency of MR imaging to orientate surgical treatment of posterior deep pelvic endometriosis

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the accuracy of MRI using pelvic-phased-array and endocavitary coils in detecting intestinal wall invasion by an endometriotic nodule.

Materials and methods

Forty-seven patients (32.1 ± 4.2 years) who were planned for a surgical cure of deep endometriosis underwent MRI with conventional sequences using both coils. A thin bright layer on T2-w with enhancement on post-Gd T1-w defined our MR pattern for muscular layer involvement. MR results were correlated with surgical and pathological findings of the removed nodule.

Results

MR results for Group 1 (both coils) achieved a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 100–63%, 96–92%, 90–70%, 100–85%, and 97–83% for endovaginal coil and phased-array coil, respectively. Group 2 (phased-array coil) had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 73%, 93%, 84%, 88%, and 87% for this coil, respectively.

Conclusion

Combined pelvic-phased-array and endovaginal coils are better than phased array alone in the detection of intestinal wall invasion. Easy to perform, it has to be considered as a preoperative staging for deep posterior endometriosis to orientate the surgical management.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Olive DL, Schwartz LB (1993) Endometriosis. N Engl J Med 328:1759–1769

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Clement M (2002) Disease of the peritoneum (including endometriosis). In: Kurmann R, (ed). Blaustein’s pathology of the female genital tract. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp 729–789

    Google Scholar 

  3. Koninckx PR, Martin D (1994) Treatment of deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 6:231–241

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kinkel K, Chapron C, Balleyguier C et al (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod 14:1080–1086

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bazot M, Thomassin I, Hourani R et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for deep pelvic endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24:180–185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kataoka ML, Togashi K, Yamaoka T et al (2005) Posterior cul-de-sac obliteration associated with endometriosis: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 234:815–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Togashi K (2002) MR imaging in obstetrics and gynecology. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 62:7–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Katayama M, Masui T, Kobayashi S et al (2001) Evaluation of pelvic adhesions using multiphase and multislice MR imaging with kinematic display. Am J Roentgenol 177:107–110

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoeffel CC, Azizi L, Mourra N et al (2006) MRI of rectal disorders. Am J Roentgenol 187:W275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vigano P, Parazzini F, Somigliana E et al (2004) Endometriosis: epidemiology and aetiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 18:177–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schindler AE (2004) Pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Minerva Ginecol 56:419–435

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cornillie FJ, Oosterlynck D, Lauweryns JM et al (1990) Deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis: histology and clinical significance. Fertil Steril 53:978–983

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Del Frate C, Girometti R, Pittino M et al (2006) Deep retroperitoneal pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging appearance with laparoscopic correlation. Radiographics 26:1705–1718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chapron C, Boucher E, Fauconnier A et al (2002) Anatomopathological lesions of bladder endometriosis are heterogeneous. Fertil Steril 78:740–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kinkel K, Frei KA, Balleyguier C et al (2006) Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. Eur Radiol 16:285–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Redwine DB (1987) The distribution of endometriosis in the pelvis by age groups and fertility. Fertil Steril 47:173–175

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chapron C, Dumontier I, Dousset B et al (1998) Results and role of rectal endoscopic ultrasonography for patients with deep pelvic endometriosis. Hum Reprod 13:2266–2270

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sampson J (1921) Perforating hemorrhagic (chocolate) cyst of the ovary: their importance and especially their relation to pelvic adenomas of endometrial type (“adenomyoma of the uterus, rectovaginal septum, sigmoid, etc”). Archiv Surg 3:245–323

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bazot M, Detchev R, Cortez A et al (2003) Transvaginal sonography and rectal endoscopic sonography for the assessment of pelvic endometriosis: a preliminary comparison. Hum Reprod 18:1686–1692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chapron C, Fauconnier A, Vieira M et al (2003) Anatomical distribution of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: surgical implications and proposition for a classification. Hum Reprod 18:157–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cullen T (1914) Adenomyoma of the rectovaginal septum. JAMA 62:835–839

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hoogeveen M, Dorr PJ, Puylaert JB (2003) Endometriosis of the rectovaginal septum: endovaginal US and MRI findings in two cases. Abdom Imaging 28:897–901

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Nisolle M, Donnez J (1997) Peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometriosis, and adenomyotic nodules of the rectovaginal septum are three different entities. Fertil Steril 68:585–596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Donnez J, Nisolle M, Gillerot S et al (1997) Rectovaginal septum adenomyotic nodules: a series of 500 cases. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:1014–1018

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Eguchi S, Komuta K, Haraguchi M et al (2000) MRI facilitated a diagnosis of endometriosis of the rectum. J Gastroenterol 35:784–788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bazot M, Nassar J, Darai E et al (2005) Value of sonography and MR imaging for the evaluation of deep pelvic endometriosis. J Radiol 86:461–467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Carbognin G, Guarise A, Minelli L et al (2004) Pelvic endometriosis: US AND MRI features. Abdom Imaging 29:609–618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Zanardi R, Del Frate C, Zuiani C et al (2003) Staging of pelvic endometriosis based on MRI findings versus laparoscopic classification according to the American Fertility Society. Abdom Imaging 28:733–742

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Thomassin I, Bazot M, Detchev R et al (2004) Symptoms before and after surgical removal of colorectal endometriosis that are assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and rectal endoscopic sonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:1264–1271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Puglielli E, Di Cesare E, Masciocchi C (2004) Rectal endometriosis: MRI study with rectal coil. Eur Radiol 14:2362–2363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stollfuss JC, Becker K, Sendler A et al (2006) Rectal carcinoma: high-spatial-resolution MR imaging and T2 quantification in rectal cancer specimens. Radiology 241:132–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tran KT, Kuijpers HC, Willemsen WN et al (1996) Surgical treatment of symptomatic rectosigmoid endometriosis. Eur J Surg 162:139–141

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology B, Universitary Hospital of Strasbourg – Civil Hospital, 1, place de l’hopital BP 426, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Catherine Roy, Céline Balzan & Benoit Sauer

  2. Department of Gynecology, Universitary Hospital of Strasbourg – Civil Hospital, 1, place de l’hopital BP 426, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Véronique Thoma & Arnaud Wattiez

  3. Department of Digestive Surgery, Universitary Hospital of Strasbourg – Civil Hospital, 1, place de l’hopital BP 426, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Joel Leroy

Authors
  1. Catherine Roy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Céline Balzan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Véronique Thoma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Benoit Sauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arnaud Wattiez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joel Leroy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Roy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roy, C., Balzan, C., Thoma, V. et al. Efficiency of MR imaging to orientate surgical treatment of posterior deep pelvic endometriosis. Abdom Imaging 34, 251–259 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9367-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9367-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation