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


     


This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
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 Siedler, D.
Right arrow Articles by Wing, V. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Siedler, D.
Right arrow Articles by Wing, V. W.

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol 6, Issue 7 345-349, Copyright © 1987 by American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine


JOURNAL ARTICLE

Uterine adenomyosis. A difficult sonographic diagnosis

D. Siedler, F. C. Laing, R. B. Jeffrey Jr and V. W. Wing

In an effort to distinguish the appearance of generalized uterine adenomyosis from leiomyoma, a retrospective study was performed on 80 patients who had preoperative uterine sonography. A diagnosis of adenomyosis (eight patients) was suggested if the uterus was diffusely enlarged, but the myometrial texture, contour, and central cavity echoes were each normal. Leiomyoma, or other focal uterine pathology (72 patients) was characterized by focal or globular uterine enlargement with abnormal echo texture and contour, as well as nonvisualization or displacement of the central cavity echo complex. Using these criteria, ultrasound was able to suggest adenomyosis with a sensitivity of 63%, a specificity of 97%, and a positive predictive value of 71%. Focal pathology was diagnosed with a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 63%, and a positive predictive value of 96%. Although irregular myometrial sonolucent zones have previously been reported as characteristic for adenomyosis, this study did not confirm this finding.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
S. Chopra, A. S. Lev-Toaff, F. Ors, and D. Bergin
Adenomyosis:common and uncommon manifestations on sonography and magnetic resonance imaging.
J. Ultrasound Med., May 1, 2006; 25(5): 617 - 627.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
K. Tamai, K. Togashi, T. Ito, N. Morisawa, T. Fujiwara, and T. Koyama
MR Imaging Findings of Adenomyosis: Correlation with Histopathologic Features and Diagnostic Pitfalls
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2005; 25(1): 21 - 40.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. A. Hulka, D. A. Hall, K. McCarthy, and J. Simeone
Sonographic Findings in Patients with Adenomyosis: Can Sonography Assist in Predicting Extent of Disease?
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2002; 179(2): 379 - 383.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
G. P. Siskin, M. E. Tublin, B. F. Stainken, K. Dowling, and E. G. Dolen
Uterine Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Adenomyosis: Clinical Response and Evaluation with MR Imaging
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2001; 177(2): 297 - 302.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1987 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.