Diagnostic Accuracy of 3-Dimensional Ultrasound in Mullerian Duct Anomalies in Comparison to MRI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i5.1530Keywords:
Müllerian Duct Anomalies (Mdas), 3-Dimensional Ultrasound (3D US) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Diagnostic Accuracy, Uterine AnomaliesAbstract
Introduction: Müllerian duct anomalies (MDAs) are the congenital anomalies of female reproductive tract that can have significant impact on a woman’s fertility and her pregnancy outcomes. Accurate imaging is essential for their diagnosis and management. 2-dimensional ultrasound (2D US) and MRI are the traditional methods that have been mainstays for the diagnosing purpose, but the introduction of 3D Ultrasound in the domain of ultrasound has offered potential advantages in visualization and enhancing diagnostic accuracy. Objective: To find out what is the diagnostic accuracy of 3-Dimensional ultrasound in diagnosing Mullerian duct anomalies as compared to MRI. Materials and Methodology: Articles included in this review were identified through systematic searches of databases such as Pub Med, Paywall, Wiley.com and Google Scholar. Studies were selected based on their relevance to the use of 3D ultrasound in diagnosing Müllerian duct anomalies. Results: Based on different studies we found that 3 Dimensional Ultrasound proved to be highly accurate in diagnosis of Uterine anomalies and showed strong agreement with MRI(P <0.01). Conclusion: 3D ultrasound has proved to be an excellent modality for the diagnosis of mullerian duct modalities. It’s low cost, easy access and real time imaging make it promising and a good diagnosing tool. Although MRI is the standard reference, 3D ultrasound can be preffered over it if its limitations are minimized as the diagnostic accuracy is almost similar to MRI if performed by experienced hands.
Downloads
References
Kumar, A., & Sinha, R. R. (2019). Mullerian Duct Anomaly-A Spectrum of Varied Clinical Manifestations.
https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/sea-202680
Behr, S. C., Courtier, J. L., & Qayyum, A. (2012). Imaging of Müllerian Duct Anomalies. RadioGraphics, 32(6), E233–E250.
https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.326125515
Byrne, J., Nussbaum-Blask, A. R., Taylor, W. S., Rubin, A., Hill, M. C., O’Donnell, R., & Shulman, S. (2000). Prevalence of m�llerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 94(1), 9–12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-8628(20000904)94:1%3C9::aid-ajmg3%3E3.0.co;2-h
Abd elsalam, S. M., Abd elmegeed, N. E., Said, A. H. M., & Sayed, M. A. elghafar. (2020). Role of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 51(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00156-8
OLPIN, J. D., & HEILBRUN, M. (2009). Imaging of Müllerian Duct Anomalies. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 52(1), 40–56.
https://doi.org/10.1097/grf.0b013e3181958439
Qin, C., Lee, P., & Luo, L. (2024). The Comparison between Three-dimensional enhanced Conventional Pelvic Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Obstructive Müllerian Anomalies and its Concordance with Surgical Diagnosis. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2024.07.004
Caliskan, E., Ozkan, S., Cakiroglu, Y., Sarisoy, H. T., Corakci, A., & Ozeren, S. (2010). Diagnostic accuracy of real-time 3D sonography in the diagnosis of congenital Mullerian anomalies in high-risk patients with respect to the phase of the menstrual cycle. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, NA-NA.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.20662
Troiano, R. N., & McCarthy, S. M. (2004). Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Imaging and Clinical Issues. Radiology, 233(1), 19–34.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2331020777
Kougioumtsidou, A., Mikos, T., Grimbizis, G. F., Karavida, A., Theodoridis, T. D., Sotiriadis, A., ... & Athanasiadis, A. P. (2019). Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis and the classification of congenital uterine anomalies using the ESHRE/ESGE classification: a diagnostic accuracy study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 299, 779-789.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05050-x
Grigore, M., Cojocaru, C., Mares, A., & Indrei, A. (2009). Mullerian duct anomalies: Clinical Issues and of 3D Ultrasound Diagnosis. Gineco. ro, 5(2), 101-105.
https://gineco.eu/system/revista/6/100-105.pdf
Moini, A., Mohammadi, S., Hosseini, R., Eslami, B., & Ahmadi, F. (2013). Accuracy of 3-Dimensional Sonography for Diagnosis and Classification of Congenital Uterine Anomalies. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 32(6), 923–927.
https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.32.6.923
Ergenoglu, A. M., Sahin, Ç., Şimşek, D., Akdemir, A., Yeniel, A. Ö., Yerli, H., & Sendag, F. (2016). Comparison of three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis in surgically proven Müllerian duct anomaly cases. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 197, 22–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.11.010
Ludwin, A., & Ludwin, I. (2015). Comparison of the ESHRE–ESGE and ASRM classifications of Müllerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Human Reproduction, 30(3), 569-580.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
