medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial del Hospital Angeles Health System

2022, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta Med 2022; 20 (1)

Prevalence of adenomyomas and associated findings in magnetic resonance studies of the uterus in patients with myomatosis

Galicia TLN, Gómez PMG

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 24-29
PDF size: 231.41 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objectives: To establish characteristics of adenomyosis and its incidence, as well as to establish the link between adenomyosis with other imaging findings of women undergoing an MRI study by uterine myomatosis. Material and methods: The following study has an observational, descriptive, retrospective, and longitudinal. 50 MRI studies with the protocol for the location of fibroids were reviewed. Such studies were conducted between January 01, 2018, to December 31, 2019. Results: The average age was 38.72 ± 9.12 years with normal or parametric distribution according to the Kolmogórov-Smirnov test (p = 0.2). The lesson's location was predominantly in the intramural (30%) and the intramural-subserous association (22%). The average injury size was 9.76 ± 4.44 mm. Of the 50 cases with a clinical diagnosis, only 11 (22%) were compatible with adenomyosis, for which there were 39 false positives. Microcysts were found in 15 patients (30%). No correlation was found between the size of the injury and its location (p = 0.193). Conclusion: MRI is a useful tool for discerning real adenomyomatosis injuries from those diagnosed by clinical diagnosis.


REFERENCES

  1. Benagiano G, Brosens I, Lippi D. The history of endometriosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2014; 78 (1): 1-9.

  2. Taran FA, Stewart EA, Brucker S. Adenomyosis: epidemiology, risk factors, clinical phenotype and surgical and interventional alternatives to hysterectomy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013; 73 (9): 924-931.

  3. Abbott JA. Adenomyosis and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB-A)-pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; 40: 68-81.

  4. Contreras Zarza E, Urias Soto FA. Incidencia de adenomiosis vs miomatosis uterina como causa de histerectomía en el hospital de concentración ISSEMYM Satélite entre el 1 de marzo de 2007 y el 1 de marzo de 2010 [Tesis]. México: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México; 2013. Disponible en: http://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/977253

  5. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA. Adenomyosis: a clinical review of a challenging gynecologic condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23 (2): 164-185.

  6. Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, Mehio A, Atri M, Zakarian R et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996; 199 (1): 151-158.

  7. Cunningham RK, Horrow MM, Smith RJ, Springer J. Adenomyosis: a sonographic diagnosis. Radiographics. 2018; 38 (5): 1576-1589.

  8. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K. Adenomyosis: usual and unusual imaging manifestations, pitfalls, and problem-solving MR imaging techniques. Radiographics. 2011; 31 (1): 99-115.

  9. Novellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J, Toullalan O, Chevallier A, Bouaziz J et al. MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196 (5): 1206-1213.

  10. Taourel P, Laffargue G, Dechaud H. Adenomyosis: what imaging modality in the diagnosis and staging? Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2004; 32 (11): 976-980.

  11. Tamai K, Koyama T, Umeoka S, Saga T, Fujii S, Togashi K. Spectrum of MR features in adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006; 20 (4): 583-602.

  12. Siegler AM, Camilien L. Adenomyosis. J Reprod Med. 1994; 39 (11): 841-853.

  13. Kissler S, Zangos S, Kohl J, Wiegratz I, Rody A, Gatje R et al. Duration of dysmenorrhoea and extent of adenomyosis visualised by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008; 137 (2): 204-209.

  14. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sorensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2001; 76 (3): 588-594.

  15. Cammilli F, Rizzello F, Castellacci E, Riviello C, Coccia ME. OP11.08: Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance in the study of under-diagnosed endometriosis: adenomyosis and deep endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 30 (4): 492.

  16. Nakai A, Koyama T, Fujimoto K, Togashi K. Functional MR imaging of the uterus. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2008; 16 (4): 673-684, ix.

  17. Cruz GG. Concordancia clínica e histopatología de miomatosis uterina en el Servicio de Ginecología en un hospital de tercer nivel [Tesis de posgrado]. Veracruz: Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad de Veracruz; 2012.

  18. Arellano PEI, Labastida TJ. Prevalencia de adenomiosis en piezas quirúrgicas de histerectomía y factores de riesgo clínicos relacionados. Acta Med. 2018; 16 (1): 15-22.

  19. Joshi JK, Kirk L. Adenomyomatosis. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021. Available in: https://www.statpearls.com/articlelibrary/viewarticle/17202

  20. Jiménez ES, Cortéz LJ. Adenomiosis uterina estudio clínico epidemiológico. Rev Peru Ginecol Obstet. 1989; 35 (7): 14-19.

  21. Harada T, Khine YM, Kaponis A, Nikellis T, Decavalas G, Taniguchi F. The impact of adenomyosis on women's fertility. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016; 71 (9): 557-568.

  22. Ascher SM, Jha RC, Reinhold C. Benign myometrial conditions: leiomyomas and adenomyosis. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003; 14 (4): 281-304.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com