[1. Beatriz L. P. Junqueira, et al. Müllerian Duct Anomalies and Mimics in Children and Adolescents: Correlative Intraoperative Assessment with Clinical Imaging. RadioGraphics. 2009; 29: 1085–1103.10.1148/rg.294085737]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Epelman M, Dinan D, Gee MS, Servaes S, Lee EY, Darge K. Müllerian duct and related anomalies in children and adolescents. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2013; 21(4): 773-89.10.1016/j.mric.2013.04.011]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Behr SC, Courtier JL, et al. Imaging of müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics. 2012; 32(6): 233–50.10.1148/rg.326125515]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Lawrence S. Amesse. Mullerian duct anomalies. WebMD.2016. emedicine.medscape.com/article/273534-overview.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Riberio SC, Tormena RA, Peterson TV, et al: Mullerian Duct Anomalies: review of € current management. Sao Paulo Med J. 2009; 127: 92.10.1590/S1516-31802009000200007]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Marcal L et al: Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2011; 36(6): 756–64.10.1007/s00261-010-9681-x]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Lawrence S. A. (2007) Congenital Anomalies of the Female Reproductive Tract. In T. Falcone, W.W. Hurd (Ed.) (171-190) Clinical Reproductive Medicine and Surgery. USA, Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, et al. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17: 761.10.1093/humupd/dmr028]Search in Google Scholar
[9. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian Anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988; 49: 944.10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59942-7]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Jegannathan D, Indiran V. Magnetic resonance imaging of classified and unclassified Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Comparison of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology classifications. S Afr J Rad. 2018; 22(1): a1259.10.4102/sajr.v22i1.1259683783031754489]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Campo R, Gordts S, et al. The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: A systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30(5): 1046–1058.10.1093/humrep/dev061440020125788565]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. The ESHREESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013; 282032.10.1093/humrep/det098371266023771171]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Li Y, Phelps A, Zapala MA, MacKenzie JD, MacKenzie TC, Courtier J. Magnetic resonance imaging of Müllerian Duct Anomalies in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2016; 46(6): 796–805.10.1007/s00247-016-3583-127229498]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Yadav P. Magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and classification of uterovaginal congenital anomalies. Med J DY Patil Univ. 2017; 10: 510–6.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Yasmin Mounir Tohamey. MRI is it complementary or mandatory to ultrasound in classification of different congenital anomalies of female reproductive tract? The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2018; 49: 571–578.10.1016/j.ejrnm.2018.01.011]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Ibrahim Syed. Imaging in Mullerian Duct Abnormalities.WebMed2016.emedicine.medscape.com/article/405335-overview]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Mueller GC et al. Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189(6): 1294–302.10.2214/AJR.07.249418029861]Search in Google Scholar