Skip to main content.

Diagnosis: Gynecology

Imaging in gynecology.
Valentin L
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006 Aug 9;.e-pub

This chapter summarizes the diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios) of ultrasound, computer tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of various gynecological diseases and tumors. Positron emission tomography is not discussed. Imaging in infertility, in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and in gynecological oncology (staging of gynecological cancers, diagnosis of recurrence of gynecological cancer, diagnosis of trophoblastic tumors) is not dealt with. Ultrasound is the first-line imaging method for discrimination between viable intrauterine pregnancy, miscarriage and tubal pregnancy in women with bleeding and/or pain in early pregnancy, for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses and for making a specific diagnosis in adnexal tumors (e.g. dermoid cyst, endometrioma, hemorrhagic corpus luteum, etc.), for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology in women with bleeding problems, and for confirming or refuting pelvic pathology in women with pelvic pain. Magnetic resonance imaging can have a role as a secondary test in the diagnosis of adenomyosis, 'deep endometriosis' (e.g. endometriosis in the rectovaginal septum or in the uterosacral ligaments), and in the diagnosis of extremely rare types of ectopic pregnancy (e.g. in the spleen, liver or retroperitoneum).


Vaginal speculum examinations without stirrups.
Barr WB
BMJ. 2006 Jul 22;333(7560):158-9.


Magnetic resonance-based serial pelvimetry: do maternal pelvic dimensions change during pregnancy?

Huerta-Enochian GS, Katz VL, Fox LK, Hamlin JA, Kollath JP
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jun;194(6):1689-94; discussion 1694-5.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the stability of the maternal pelvis over the course of the third trimester and the puerperium. STUDY DESIGN: Pregnant patients were recruited to undergo comparative magnetic resonance-based pelvimetry and fetal ultrasonography at 37 to 38 weeks of gestation. Most of the patients were recruited from a study of women who planned a trial of labor after a previous cesarean delivery for cephalopelvic disproportion. These results have been reported previously. Patients then underwent magnetic resonance-based pelvimetry within 3 days and at 3 months after delivery. Postdelivery analysis was used to answer the question: Do pelvic dimensions change after delivery? RESULTS: Eighteen patients completed the study. Eleven of the patients underwent cesarean deliveries, of which 4 deliveries were before labor. Seven patients had successful vaginal births after their previous cesarean delivery. Statistical analysis of the 18 patients determined that pelvic measurements did not demonstrate change over the course the study. CONCLUSION: Serial magnetic resonance-based pelvimetry showed relative stability of pelvic measurements through the course of pregnancy and delivery. If comparative pelvimetry is to be useful as an antepartum predictor of labor success, then it may be possible to obtain reliable pelvimetry in those patients anytime after delivery.