User login
As detailed in Part 1 of this installment on uterine anomalies, a uterus that has developed abnormally can appear to be normal on 2D sonography and on unenhanced sonohysterography (Figure). Without the application of 3D coronal ultrasonography, accurate identification of the fundal contour, and ultimately the type and classification of the uterine anomaly, is not possible.1-3 Fortunately, the lowered cost (compared with magnetic resonance imaging) and the noninvasive nature of this more detailed imaging modality makes its use convenient to both the physician and the patient.
In part 1 of this 2-part installment of our imaging series, we discussed the frequency with which uterine anomalies occur and their types and classifications, as well as offered an imaging library showing the normal endometrial cavity, arcuate uterus, incomplete (partial) uterine septum, and complete uterine septum. Here, we provide two cases demonstrating 3D sonography of the unicornuate, bicornuate, didelphic, and DES-exposed uterus.
A. | B.  |
C.  | D.  |
| E. | F.  |
G. 
In sagittal view, a uterus with a congenital anomaly can appear normal. Sagittal views of a normal uterus (A) and didelphic uterus (B) and sonohysterogram of a unicornuate uterus (C). Transverse views of a normal (D) and didelphic uterus (E). 3D coronal views of a normal (F) and didelphic uterus (G).
Case 1: Unicornuate uterus
Transverse view of Mirena IUD in right horn and noncommunicating rudimentary left horn.
Case 2: Bicornuate uterus, with concave contour
A patient reporting pelvic pain is examined by 2D sonography, which reveals a bicornuate uterus (A). Note the concave fundal contour (arrow), indicating bicornuate uterus, both horns communicating. 3D imaging (B) revealing fundal “dimple” (concave contour, >1 cm), which is indicative of bicornuate uterus. Complete separation of cavities (C).
A. 
B. 
C. 
Case 3: Didelphic uterus
A patient presenting with primary infertility is found to have a didelphic uterus on 2D and 3D imaging. Note complete separation of uterine cavities on transverse, 2D views (A and B). The left horn sagittal, 2D view shows a normal appearing uterus (C). 3D imaging (D).
A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
Additional images
- Deutch T, Bocca S, Oehninger S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of müllerian anomalies [abstract]. Fertil Steril 2006; 86(suppl):S308.15.
- Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound 1997; 25:487–492.
- Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies: a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:413–423.
Michelle L. Stalnaker Ozcan, MD
Assistant Professor and Associate Program Director, Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville
Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville. Dr. Kaunitz is a member of the OBG Management Board of Editors.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Michelle L. Stalnaker Ozcan, MD
Assistant Professor and Associate Program Director, Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville
Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville. Dr. Kaunitz is a member of the OBG Management Board of Editors.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Michelle L. Stalnaker Ozcan, MD
Assistant Professor and Associate Program Director, Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville
Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville. Dr. Kaunitz is a member of the OBG Management Board of Editors.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
As detailed in Part 1 of this installment on uterine anomalies, a uterus that has developed abnormally can appear to be normal on 2D sonography and on unenhanced sonohysterography (Figure). Without the application of 3D coronal ultrasonography, accurate identification of the fundal contour, and ultimately the type and classification of the uterine anomaly, is not possible.1-3 Fortunately, the lowered cost (compared with magnetic resonance imaging) and the noninvasive nature of this more detailed imaging modality makes its use convenient to both the physician and the patient.
In part 1 of this 2-part installment of our imaging series, we discussed the frequency with which uterine anomalies occur and their types and classifications, as well as offered an imaging library showing the normal endometrial cavity, arcuate uterus, incomplete (partial) uterine septum, and complete uterine septum. Here, we provide two cases demonstrating 3D sonography of the unicornuate, bicornuate, didelphic, and DES-exposed uterus.
A. | B. |
| C. | D. |
| E. | F. |
G.
In sagittal view, a uterus with a congenital anomaly can appear normal. Sagittal views of a normal uterus (A) and didelphic uterus (B) and sonohysterogram of a unicornuate uterus (C). Transverse views of a normal (D) and didelphic uterus (E). 3D coronal views of a normal (F) and didelphic uterus (G).
Case 1: Unicornuate uterus
Transverse view of Mirena IUD in right horn and noncommunicating rudimentary left horn.
Case 2: Bicornuate uterus, with concave contour
A patient reporting pelvic pain is examined by 2D sonography, which reveals a bicornuate uterus (A). Note the concave fundal contour (arrow), indicating bicornuate uterus, both horns communicating. 3D imaging (B) revealing fundal “dimple” (concave contour, >1 cm), which is indicative of bicornuate uterus. Complete separation of cavities (C).
A.
B.
C.
Case 3: Didelphic uterus
A patient presenting with primary infertility is found to have a didelphic uterus on 2D and 3D imaging. Note complete separation of uterine cavities on transverse, 2D views (A and B). The left horn sagittal, 2D view shows a normal appearing uterus (C). 3D imaging (D).
A.
B.
C.
D.
Additional images
As detailed in Part 1 of this installment on uterine anomalies, a uterus that has developed abnormally can appear to be normal on 2D sonography and on unenhanced sonohysterography (Figure). Without the application of 3D coronal ultrasonography, accurate identification of the fundal contour, and ultimately the type and classification of the uterine anomaly, is not possible.1-3 Fortunately, the lowered cost (compared with magnetic resonance imaging) and the noninvasive nature of this more detailed imaging modality makes its use convenient to both the physician and the patient.
In part 1 of this 2-part installment of our imaging series, we discussed the frequency with which uterine anomalies occur and their types and classifications, as well as offered an imaging library showing the normal endometrial cavity, arcuate uterus, incomplete (partial) uterine septum, and complete uterine septum. Here, we provide two cases demonstrating 3D sonography of the unicornuate, bicornuate, didelphic, and DES-exposed uterus.
A. | B. |
| C. | D. |
| E. | F. |
G.
In sagittal view, a uterus with a congenital anomaly can appear normal. Sagittal views of a normal uterus (A) and didelphic uterus (B) and sonohysterogram of a unicornuate uterus (C). Transverse views of a normal (D) and didelphic uterus (E). 3D coronal views of a normal (F) and didelphic uterus (G).
Case 1: Unicornuate uterus
Transverse view of Mirena IUD in right horn and noncommunicating rudimentary left horn.
Case 2: Bicornuate uterus, with concave contour
A patient reporting pelvic pain is examined by 2D sonography, which reveals a bicornuate uterus (A). Note the concave fundal contour (arrow), indicating bicornuate uterus, both horns communicating. 3D imaging (B) revealing fundal “dimple” (concave contour, >1 cm), which is indicative of bicornuate uterus. Complete separation of cavities (C).
A.
B.
C.
Case 3: Didelphic uterus
A patient presenting with primary infertility is found to have a didelphic uterus on 2D and 3D imaging. Note complete separation of uterine cavities on transverse, 2D views (A and B). The left horn sagittal, 2D view shows a normal appearing uterus (C). 3D imaging (D).
A.
B.
C.
D.
Additional images
- Deutch T, Bocca S, Oehninger S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of müllerian anomalies [abstract]. Fertil Steril 2006; 86(suppl):S308.15.
- Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound 1997; 25:487–492.
- Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies: a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:413–423.
- Deutch T, Bocca S, Oehninger S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of müllerian anomalies [abstract]. Fertil Steril 2006; 86(suppl):S308.15.
- Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound 1997; 25:487–492.
- Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies: a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:413–423.
