Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weinreb, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Erdman, W. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weinreb, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Erdman, W. A.

Radiology, Vol 159, 717-724, Copyright © 1986 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Pelvic masses in pregnant patients: MR and US imaging

JC Weinreb, CE Brown, TW Lowe, JM Cohen and WA Erdman

Sixteen pregnant patients with pelvic masses detected with ultrasound (US) were studied with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 0.35 T. Two patients were in their first trimester, eight in the second, and six in the last. On MR images, 34 masses were seen, including 19 uterine leiomyomas. With US, 20 masses were detected. All masses not seen with US were leiomyomas. Only 20 masses (in 11 patients) were removed for histologic study. In nine cases, MR imaging and US provided similar information on the origin, extent, and type of mass. In seven patients, MR imaging contributed additional information. MR imaging depicted more leiomyomas than US in three patients. In another case, MR images showed that a mass depicted with US was actually a loop of bowel. MR images allowed differentiation between a solid soft-tissue mass and a hemorrhagic fluid-containing mass, correctly depicted the presence of an abdominal pregnancy, and allowed evaluation of the parametrium for spread of cervical carcinoma.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
N. A. Telischak, B. M. Yeh, B. N. Joe, A. C. Westphalen, L. Poder, and F. V. Coakley
MRI of Adnexal Masses in Pregnancy
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): 364 - 370.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
G. Chiang and D. Levine
Imaging of Adnexal Masses in Pregnancy
J. Ultrasound Med., June 1, 2004; 23(6): 805 - 819.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
E. R. Norwitz, L. P.J. Hoyte, K. J. Jenkins, M. E. van der Velde, P. Ratiu, D. Rodriguez-Thompson, L. Wilkins-Haug, C. M.C. Tempany, and S. J. Fishman
Separation of Conjoined Twins with the Twin Reversed-Arterial-Perfusion Sequence after Prenatal Planning with Three-Dimensional Modeling
N. Engl. J. Med., August 10, 2000; 343(6): 399 - 402.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. Levine, P. D. Barnes, and R. R. Edelman
Obstetric MR Imaging
Radiology, June 1, 1999; 211(3): 609 - 617.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1986 by the Radiological Society of North America.