2014
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24771
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Müllerian duct anomalies: Embryological development, classification, and MRI assessment

Abstract: Müllerian duct anomalies (MDA) occur due to abnormal development of the uterus, cervix, and vagina, many times affecting a woman's ability to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term. The spectrum of possible abnormalities are related to the development of two separate Müllerian systems, which then fuse and subsequently undergo degeneration of the fused segments. This multiphasic development explains the multiple variations within the scheme of MDA classification. The purpose of this article is to review the emb… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
76
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
(105 reference statements)
3
76
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is classified as type III Mullerian duct anomaly (MDA) associated by mesonephric duct anomaly. It accounts for approximately 5% of MDAs [4,5]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is classified as type III Mullerian duct anomaly (MDA) associated by mesonephric duct anomaly. It accounts for approximately 5% of MDAs [4,5]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, no signs of laceration, effusion or lesions and no uterine anomalies were observed during the cesarean section. Based on current literature, we consider the mechanism involved in this case may be Mullerian duct dysplasia, which is the primary cause for the development of congenital uterine anomalies related to gene abnormities, environment factors, radiational exposure, steroid hormones disorders and so on …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound is the most commonly used imaging method in pregnancy, it is also the least accurate in diagnosing PD abnormalities 6. Compared with hysteroscopy, the sensitivity of 2D ultrasound in detecting PD abnormalities was 56%6 likely due to difficulty visualising the outer contours of the uterine fundus 36. In comparison, 3D ultrasound and MRI are each reported to have a sensitivity of 100% in diagnosing PD abnormalities 6 37.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%