Müllerian Duct Anomalies- Diagnostic Imaging in Pediatric and Adolescent Population

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.294085737Search 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.2013.04.011Search in Google Scholar

3. Behr SC, Courtier JL, et al. Imaging of müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics. 2012; 32(6): 233–50.10.1148/rg.326125515Search 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/S1516-31802009000200007Search 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-xSearch 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/dmr028Search 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)59942-7Search 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.v22i1.1259683783031754489Search 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/dev061440020125788565Search 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/det098371266023771171Search 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/s00247-016-3583-127229498Search 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.2018.01.011Search in Google Scholar

16. Ibrahim Syed. Imaging in Mullerian Duct Abnormalities.WebMed2016.emedicine.medscape.com/article/405335-overviewSearch 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.07.249418029861Search in Google Scholar