Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging

Objectives To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology 2010-05, Vol.35 (5), p.593-601
Hauptverfasser: Bermejo, C., Martínez Ten, P., Cantarero, R., Diaz, D., Pérez Pedregosa, J., Barrón, E., Labrador, E., Ruiz López, L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 601
container_issue 5
container_start_page 593
container_title Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology
container_volume 35
creator Bermejo, C.
Martínez Ten, P.
Cantarero, R.
Diaz, D.
Pérez Pedregosa, J.
Barrón, E.
Labrador, E.
Ruiz López, L.
description Objectives To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinics on suspicion of uterine malformation following clinical and/or conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound examination. With the exception of three with intact hymen, patients underwent both bimanual examination and speculoscopy before and/or after sonography. MRI was performed in 65 cases. We analyzed the diagnostic concordance between the techniques in the study of uterine malformations. Results Using 3D ultrasound we diagnosed: one case with uterine agenesis; 10 with unicornuate uterus, four of which also underwent MRI; six with didelphic uterus, one of which had MRI; 45 with bicornuate uterus, 12 of which had MRI; 125 with septate uterus (18 with two cervices), 42 of which had MRI (six with two cervices); 96 with arcuate uterus, three of which had MRI; and three with diethylstilbestrol (DES) iatrogenic uterine malformations, all of which had MRI. Among the 65 which underwent MRI, the diagnosis was: four cases with unicornuate uterus, 10 with bicornuate uterus (two with two cervices), 45 with septate uterus (five with two cervices), three with arcuate uterus and three with DES‐related uterine malformations. The concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI was very good (kappa index, 0.880 (95% CI, 0.769–0.993)). Discrepancies in diagnosis between the two techniques occurred in four cases. There was very good concordance in the diagnosis of associated findings (kappa index, 0.878 (95% CI, 0.775–0.980)), this analysis identifying differences in two cases. Conclusions There is a high degree of concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of uterine malformations, the relationship between cavity and fundus being visualized equally well with both techniques. 3D ultrasound should be complemented by careful gynecological exploration in order to identify any alterations in the cervix. Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/uog.7551
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733949606</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1017963766</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4171-747ee40ba36e4437a424a42e636c915ceb2049098c92e90101e9a3fa4d8b84083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtuFDEQhi0EIkNA4gTIGwSbDuVH2-0likhACsomWbc87uoZI7cd7G5FkbLgCBwoO27CSfCQ4bGBRalKpa_-UtVPyHMGRwyAv1nS5ki3LXtAVkwq04CG9iFZgVHQaGX4AXlSyicAUFKox-SAA7RcqXZFbi-2GfH7l6-DnzAWn6INdAlztiUtcaA-0nmLdPB2E1PxhaaRfvx2FwJmbyMdFjdTG9Nkg8dSq4G6FF3Kg40O6bWft3Sqozh7RzOWKr_r-9rzcfOUPBptKPhsnw_J5cm7i-P3zdn56Yfjt2eNk0yzRkuNKGFthUIphbaSyxqohHKGtQ7XHKQB0znD0QADhsaK0cqhW3cSOnFIXt3rXuX0ecEy95MvDkOwEdNSei2EkfVXqpKv_0tWbW2U0Oov1OVUSsaxv8r1rnxToX7nSl9d6XeuVPTFXnVZTzj8Bn_ZUIGXe8AWZ8OY65d8-cNx1XVcQeWae-7aB7z558L-8vz05-IfIzqlmw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1017963766</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Bermejo, C. ; Martínez Ten, P. ; Cantarero, R. ; Diaz, D. ; Pérez Pedregosa, J. ; Barrón, E. ; Labrador, E. ; Ruiz López, L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bermejo, C. ; Martínez Ten, P. ; Cantarero, R. ; Diaz, D. ; Pérez Pedregosa, J. ; Barrón, E. ; Labrador, E. ; Ruiz López, L.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinics on suspicion of uterine malformation following clinical and/or conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound examination. With the exception of three with intact hymen, patients underwent both bimanual examination and speculoscopy before and/or after sonography. MRI was performed in 65 cases. We analyzed the diagnostic concordance between the techniques in the study of uterine malformations. Results Using 3D ultrasound we diagnosed: one case with uterine agenesis; 10 with unicornuate uterus, four of which also underwent MRI; six with didelphic uterus, one of which had MRI; 45 with bicornuate uterus, 12 of which had MRI; 125 with septate uterus (18 with two cervices), 42 of which had MRI (six with two cervices); 96 with arcuate uterus, three of which had MRI; and three with diethylstilbestrol (DES) iatrogenic uterine malformations, all of which had MRI. Among the 65 which underwent MRI, the diagnosis was: four cases with unicornuate uterus, 10 with bicornuate uterus (two with two cervices), 45 with septate uterus (five with two cervices), three with arcuate uterus and three with DES‐related uterine malformations. The concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI was very good (kappa index, 0.880 (95% CI, 0.769–0.993)). Discrepancies in diagnosis between the two techniques occurred in four cases. There was very good concordance in the diagnosis of associated findings (kappa index, 0.878 (95% CI, 0.775–0.980)), this analysis identifying differences in two cases. Conclusions There is a high degree of concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of uterine malformations, the relationship between cavity and fundus being visualized equally well with both techniques. 3D ultrasound should be complemented by careful gynecological exploration in order to identify any alterations in the cervix. Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-7692</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1469-0705</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-0705</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/uog.7551</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20052665</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>3D US ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cavities ; Cervix ; congenital uterine malformations ; Diethylstilbestrol ; Exploration ; Female ; Gynecology ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods ; magnetic resonance ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Medical sciences ; MRI ; Mullerian ; Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities ; Mullerian Ducts - diagnostic imaging ; Mullerian Ducts - pathology ; Müllerian anomalies ; Müllerian duct anomalies ; Obstetrics ; Reproducibility of Results ; three‐dimensional ultrasonography ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasound ; Uterine Diseases - diagnosis ; Uterine Diseases - pathology ; uterine malformations ; Uterus ; Uterus - abnormalities</subject><ispartof>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology, 2010-05, Vol.35 (5), p.593-601</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4171-747ee40ba36e4437a424a42e636c915ceb2049098c92e90101e9a3fa4d8b84083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4171-747ee40ba36e4437a424a42e636c915ceb2049098c92e90101e9a3fa4d8b84083</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fuog.7551$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fuog.7551$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,1433,27924,27925,45574,45575,46409,46833</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=22688260$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20052665$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bermejo, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez Ten, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cantarero, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez Pedregosa, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barrón, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labrador, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruiz López, L.</creatorcontrib><title>Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging</title><title>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</title><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Objectives To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinics on suspicion of uterine malformation following clinical and/or conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound examination. With the exception of three with intact hymen, patients underwent both bimanual examination and speculoscopy before and/or after sonography. MRI was performed in 65 cases. We analyzed the diagnostic concordance between the techniques in the study of uterine malformations. Results Using 3D ultrasound we diagnosed: one case with uterine agenesis; 10 with unicornuate uterus, four of which also underwent MRI; six with didelphic uterus, one of which had MRI; 45 with bicornuate uterus, 12 of which had MRI; 125 with septate uterus (18 with two cervices), 42 of which had MRI (six with two cervices); 96 with arcuate uterus, three of which had MRI; and three with diethylstilbestrol (DES) iatrogenic uterine malformations, all of which had MRI. Among the 65 which underwent MRI, the diagnosis was: four cases with unicornuate uterus, 10 with bicornuate uterus (two with two cervices), 45 with septate uterus (five with two cervices), three with arcuate uterus and three with DES‐related uterine malformations. The concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI was very good (kappa index, 0.880 (95% CI, 0.769–0.993)). Discrepancies in diagnosis between the two techniques occurred in four cases. There was very good concordance in the diagnosis of associated findings (kappa index, 0.878 (95% CI, 0.775–0.980)), this analysis identifying differences in two cases. Conclusions There is a high degree of concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of uterine malformations, the relationship between cavity and fundus being visualized equally well with both techniques. 3D ultrasound should be complemented by careful gynecological exploration in order to identify any alterations in the cervix. Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>3D US</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cavities</subject><subject>Cervix</subject><subject>congenital uterine malformations</subject><subject>Diethylstilbestrol</subject><subject>Exploration</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</subject><subject>magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>MRI</subject><subject>Mullerian</subject><subject>Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities</subject><subject>Mullerian Ducts - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Mullerian Ducts - pathology</subject><subject>Müllerian anomalies</subject><subject>Müllerian duct anomalies</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>three‐dimensional ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Uterine Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Uterine Diseases - pathology</subject><subject>uterine malformations</subject><subject>Uterus</subject><subject>Uterus - abnormalities</subject><issn>0960-7692</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtuFDEQhi0EIkNA4gTIGwSbDuVH2-0likhACsomWbc87uoZI7cd7G5FkbLgCBwoO27CSfCQ4bGBRalKpa_-UtVPyHMGRwyAv1nS5ki3LXtAVkwq04CG9iFZgVHQaGX4AXlSyicAUFKox-SAA7RcqXZFbi-2GfH7l6-DnzAWn6INdAlztiUtcaA-0nmLdPB2E1PxhaaRfvx2FwJmbyMdFjdTG9Nkg8dSq4G6FF3Kg40O6bWft3Sqozh7RzOWKr_r-9rzcfOUPBptKPhsnw_J5cm7i-P3zdn56Yfjt2eNk0yzRkuNKGFthUIphbaSyxqohHKGtQ7XHKQB0znD0QADhsaK0cqhW3cSOnFIXt3rXuX0ecEy95MvDkOwEdNSei2EkfVXqpKv_0tWbW2U0Oov1OVUSsaxv8r1rnxToX7nSl9d6XeuVPTFXnVZTzj8Bn_ZUIGXe8AWZ8OY65d8-cNx1XVcQeWae-7aB7z558L-8vz05-IfIzqlmw</recordid><startdate>201005</startdate><enddate>201005</enddate><creator>Bermejo, C.</creator><creator>Martínez Ten, P.</creator><creator>Cantarero, R.</creator><creator>Diaz, D.</creator><creator>Pérez Pedregosa, J.</creator><creator>Barrón, E.</creator><creator>Labrador, E.</creator><creator>Ruiz López, L.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201005</creationdate><title>Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging</title><author>Bermejo, C. ; Martínez Ten, P. ; Cantarero, R. ; Diaz, D. ; Pérez Pedregosa, J. ; Barrón, E. ; Labrador, E. ; Ruiz López, L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4171-747ee40ba36e4437a424a42e636c915ceb2049098c92e90101e9a3fa4d8b84083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>3D US</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cavities</topic><topic>Cervix</topic><topic>congenital uterine malformations</topic><topic>Diethylstilbestrol</topic><topic>Exploration</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</topic><topic>magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>MRI</topic><topic>Mullerian</topic><topic>Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities</topic><topic>Mullerian Ducts - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Mullerian Ducts - pathology</topic><topic>Müllerian anomalies</topic><topic>Müllerian duct anomalies</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>three‐dimensional ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Uterine Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Uterine Diseases - pathology</topic><topic>uterine malformations</topic><topic>Uterus</topic><topic>Uterus - abnormalities</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bermejo, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez Ten, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cantarero, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez Pedregosa, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barrón, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labrador, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruiz López, L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bermejo, C.</au><au>Martínez Ten, P.</au><au>Cantarero, R.</au><au>Diaz, D.</au><au>Pérez Pedregosa, J.</au><au>Barrón, E.</au><au>Labrador, E.</au><au>Ruiz López, L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging</atitle><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2010-05</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>593</spage><epage>601</epage><pages>593-601</pages><issn>0960-7692</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><eissn>1469-0705</eissn><abstract>Objectives To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinics on suspicion of uterine malformation following clinical and/or conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound examination. With the exception of three with intact hymen, patients underwent both bimanual examination and speculoscopy before and/or after sonography. MRI was performed in 65 cases. We analyzed the diagnostic concordance between the techniques in the study of uterine malformations. Results Using 3D ultrasound we diagnosed: one case with uterine agenesis; 10 with unicornuate uterus, four of which also underwent MRI; six with didelphic uterus, one of which had MRI; 45 with bicornuate uterus, 12 of which had MRI; 125 with septate uterus (18 with two cervices), 42 of which had MRI (six with two cervices); 96 with arcuate uterus, three of which had MRI; and three with diethylstilbestrol (DES) iatrogenic uterine malformations, all of which had MRI. Among the 65 which underwent MRI, the diagnosis was: four cases with unicornuate uterus, 10 with bicornuate uterus (two with two cervices), 45 with septate uterus (five with two cervices), three with arcuate uterus and three with DES‐related uterine malformations. The concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI was very good (kappa index, 0.880 (95% CI, 0.769–0.993)). Discrepancies in diagnosis between the two techniques occurred in four cases. There was very good concordance in the diagnosis of associated findings (kappa index, 0.878 (95% CI, 0.775–0.980)), this analysis identifying differences in two cases. Conclusions There is a high degree of concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of uterine malformations, the relationship between cavity and fundus being visualized equally well with both techniques. 3D ultrasound should be complemented by careful gynecological exploration in order to identify any alterations in the cervix. Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</pub><pmid>20052665</pmid><doi>10.1002/uog.7551</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0960-7692
ispartof Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology, 2010-05, Vol.35 (5), p.593-601
issn 0960-7692
1469-0705
1469-0705
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733949606
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)
subjects 3D US
Biological and medical sciences
Cavities
Cervix
congenital uterine malformations
Diethylstilbestrol
Exploration
Female
Gynecology
Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods
magnetic resonance
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Medical sciences
MRI
Mullerian
Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities
Mullerian Ducts - diagnostic imaging
Mullerian Ducts - pathology
Müllerian anomalies
Müllerian duct anomalies
Obstetrics
Reproducibility of Results
three‐dimensional ultrasonography
Ultrasonography
Ultrasound
Uterine Diseases - diagnosis
Uterine Diseases - pathology
uterine malformations
Uterus
Uterus - abnormalities
title Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T15%3A00%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Three%E2%80%90dimensional%20ultrasound%20in%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20M%C3%BCllerian%20duct%20anomalies%20and%20concordance%20with%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound%20in%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology&rft.au=Bermejo,%20C.&rft.date=2010-05&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=593&rft.epage=601&rft.pages=593-601&rft.issn=0960-7692&rft.eissn=1469-0705&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/uog.7551&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1017963766%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1017963766&rft_id=info:pmid/20052665&rfr_iscdi=true