[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
IJRR Information::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
News & Events::
Web Mail::
Search in website

Advanced Search
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
Hard Copy 2322-3243
Online 2345-4229
Online Submission
Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.



:: Volume 20, Issue 4 (10-2022) ::
Int J Radiat Res 2022, 20(4): 779-784 Back to browse issues page
A study on the diagnostic abilities of ultrasound scans in assessing uterine fibroids against magnetic resonance imaging findings in the same population
B. Al Omran Al Omran , A. Mohamed Mehad Mohamed Mehad , S. Matoi , S.M. Abdul Qadir , A. Peluola , R. O’Sullivan , N. Dayoub
Radiology Department, Bahrain Defense Force Hospital, Riffa, Bahrain , drbedooralomran@gmail.com
Abstract:   (1013 Views)
Background: This study was designed to evaluate the matching percentage among findings of the ultrasound scans (USS) to the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with fibroids. Materials and Methods: This descriptive, retrospective study was conducted from January 2016 to December 2018. This study includes 205 female patients referred from the Gynaecological Department to the Radiological Department in the Bahrain Defense Force Hospital for MRI and USS for fibroid evaluation. The data collected included their age, parity, and nationality. The StatsDirect software was used to analyze the fibroids according to the site, size, type, and number. Results: The findings of USS matched the MRI in the posterior fibroid sites in 52.5% of cases, followed by anterior (38.1%) and fundal (21.8%). For fibroid size, USS matched MRI findings in 83.3% for fibroids between >5 to ≤10 cm, 78.3% for fibroids between >2 to ≤5 cm, and 36.8% for fibroids sized ≤2 cm. Fibroids more than 10 cm in size were in agreement for 33.33% of fibroids. Submucosal fibroids matched in just 29.4% of cases, but for the subserosal fibroids, it was 44.8%. The matching score for more than four fibroids was 61.8%, followed by single fibroids (54.8%) and two fibroids (34.8%). Conclusions: Results of USS and MRI were reasonably correlated in terms of fibroid location and size. USS diagnosis of posterior wall and fibroids of size less than 2 cm highly matched MRI diagnosis.
Keywords: Fibroid size, Ultrasound, Magnetic resonance imaging, Fibroid type, Fibroid site.
Full-Text [PDF 1676 kb]   (1336 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Radiation Biology
1. Woźniak A and Woźniak S (2017) Ultrasonography of uterine leiomyomas. Przeglad menopauzalny= Menopause Rev, 16: 113. [DOI:10.5114/pm.2017.72754] [PMID] []
2. Aboulghar M, Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M, Serour G, Mansour R (2004) The effect of Intramural Fibroids on the Outcome of IVF. Middle East Fertil Soc J, 9: 263-267. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-002-0300-0] [PMID]
3. Bolan C and Caserta MP (2016) MR imaging of atypical fibroids. Abdominal Radiol, 41: 2332-2349. [DOI:10.1007/s00261-016-0935-0] [PMID]
4. Morin SJ and Schlaff WO (2017) Optimal approaches to fibroid management: consider fibroid location and the patient's pregnancy plans. Contemporary OB/GY, 62: 21-26.
5. Wise LA, Radin RG, Palmer JR, Kumanyika SK, Boggs DA, Rosenberg L (2011) Intake of fruit, vegetables, and carotenoids in relation to risk of uterine leiomyomata. Am J Clin Nutr, 94: 1620-1631. [DOI:10.3945/ajcn.111.016600] [PMID] []
6. Stewart EA (2015) Uterine fibroids. N Eng J Med, 372: 1646-1655. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMcp1411029] [PMID]
7. Khan A, Shehmar M, Gupta J (2014) Uterine Fibroids: Current Perspectives. Int J Women's Health, 6: 95-114. [DOI:10.2147/IJWH.S51083] [PMID] []
8. McLucas B (2008) Diagnosis, Imaging and Anatomical Classification of Uterine Fibroids. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 22: 627-642. [DOI:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.01.006] [PMID]
9. Testa AC, Di Legge A, Bonatti M, Manfredi R, Scambia G (2016) Imaging techniques for evaluation of uterine myomas. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 34: 37-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.11.014] [PMID]
10. De La Cruz M and Buchanan E (2017) Uterine Fibroids: Diagnosis and Treatment. Am Fam Physician, 95: 100-107.
11. Badawy M, Elkholi D, Sherif M, Hefedah M (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of pelvic lesions associated with female infertility. Middle East Fertil Soc J, 20: 165-175. [DOI:10.1016/j.mefs.2014.12.003]
12. Parker W (2007) Etiology, Symptomatology, and Diagnosis of Uterine Myomas. Fertil Steril, 87: 725-736. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.093] [PMID]
13. Hossain MZ, Rahman MM, Ullah MM, Mukthadira M, Akter FA, Jahan AB (2017) A Comparative study of magnetic resonance imaging and trans abdominal ultrasonography for the diagnosis and evaluation of uterine fibroids. Mymensingh Med J, 26: 821-827.
14. Rashid S, Chou Y, Tiu C (2016) Ultrasonography of Uterine Leiomyomas. J Med Ultrasound, 24: 3-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.jmu.2015.12.006]
15. Ahmad R, Sadek S, Ragheb A (2015) Evaluation of the Uterine Cavity by Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Three Dimensional Hysterosonography and Diagnostic Hysteroscopy in Women with Pre- and Post-menopausal Bleeding. Middle East Fertil Soc J, 20: 70-78. [DOI:10.1016/j.mefs.2014.05.002]
16. Vu K, Fast A, Shaffer R, Rosenberg J, Dababou S, Marrocchio C (2019) Evaluation of the Routine Use of Pelvic MRI in Women presenting with Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids: When is Pelvic MRI useful? J Magn Reson Imaging, 49: e271-e281. [DOI:10.1002/jmri.26620] [PMID]
17. Elkattan E, Kamel R, Elghazaly H, ElAriki E (2016) Can Three-Dimensional (3D) Power Doppler and Uterine Artery Doppler differentiate between Fibroids and Adenomyomas? Middle East Fertil Soc J, 21: 46-51. [DOI:10.1016/j.mefs.2015.07.004]
18. Abbas H, Awad I, Alharbi E, Alameri H, Althubaiti S, Ashkar L (2016) Prevalence and Incidence of Uterine Fibroid at King Abdulaziz University Hospital Saudi Arabia. Clin Med Diagn, 6: 45-48.
19. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen E, Ledertoug S, Olesen F (2002) Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transvaginal Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis, Mapping, and Measurement of Uterine Myomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 186: 409-415. [DOI:10.1067/mob.2002.121725] [PMID]
20. Levens E, Wesley R, Premkumar A, Blocker W, Nieman L (2009) Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transvaginal Ultrasound for Determining Fibroid Burden: Implications for Research and Clinical Care. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 200: 537-e1. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.12.037] [PMID] []
21. De La Cruz M and Buchanan E (2017) Uterine Fibroids: Diagnosis and Treatment. Am Fam Physician, 95: 100-107.
22. Spielmann A, Keogh C, Forster B, Martin M, Machan L (2006) Comparison of MRI and Sonography in the Preliminary Evaluation for Fibroid Embolization. Am J Roentgenol, 187: 1499-1504. [DOI:10.2214/AJR.05.1476] [PMID]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Al Omran B A O, Mohamed Mehad A M M, Matoi S, Abdul Qadir S, Peluola A, O’Sullivan R et al . A study on the diagnostic abilities of ultrasound scans in assessing uterine fibroids against magnetic resonance imaging findings in the same population. Int J Radiat Res 2022; 20 (4) :779-784
URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-4464-en.html

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 20, Issue 4 (10-2022) Back to browse issues page
International Journal of Radiation Research
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 50 queries by YEKTAWEB 4652