Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¹»·¯°ü ±âÇüÁø´Ü¿¡ À־ ÀÚ±â°ø¸í¿µ»óÀÇ À¯¿ë¼º Efficacy of MR Imaging to Evaluate Mullerian Duct Anomalies

´ëÇѹæ»ç¼±ÀÇÇÐȸÁö 1997³â 37±Ç 6È£ p.1111 ~ 1118
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹é½Â¿¬/Seung Yon Baek °­º´Ã¶/°ûÇöÁÖ/º¯À翵/±è½ÂÇù/Byung Chul Kang/Hyon Joo Kwag/Jae Young Byun/Seung Hyup Kim

Abstract

¸ñ Àû : ºñ±³Àû µå¹® ¼±Ãµ¼º ÁúȯÀÎ ¹»·¯°ü ±âÇüÀÇ MR¼Ò°ßÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© Áø´ÜÀÇ Á¤È®¼º, µ¿
¹ÝµÈ »ý½Ä±â°è ÁúȯÀÇ Áø´Ü ¹× ±âÇüÀÇ Ä¡·á¹æÇâ ¼³Á¤¿¡ MR¼Ò°ßÀÌ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¾Ë
¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý : ¹»·¯°ü ±âÇüÀÌ ÀǽɵǾî MRÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÑ 12¸í°ú ´Ù¸¥ ºÎÀΰúÀû Áø´ÜÀ» À§ÇØ
½ÃÇàÇÑ MR¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ßµÈ 3¸íÀ» Æ÷ÇÔ ÃÑ 15¸íÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. MR¿µ»óÀº 1.57(n=13)¿Í
0.57(n=2) MR±â±â¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© T1°­Á¶¿µ»ó(T1WI), ±Þ¼Ó½ºÇÉ T2°­Á¶¿µ»ó(T2Wl) ȤÀº
T2Wl, ¾çÀڹеµ¿µ»ó°ú Á¶¿µÁõ°­ T1°­Á¶¿µ»óÀÇ È¾´Ü¸é, ½Ã»ó¸é, °ü»ó¸éÀÇ ¿µ»óÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
MR¿µ»ó ¼Ò°ßÀ» Buttram°ú GibbonsÀÇ ºÐ·ù¿¡ µû¶ó ³ª´©¾î, °³º¹¼ú(n=7), Àڱðæ°Ë»ç(n=7),
º¹°­°æ°Ë»ç(n=3) ¹× Àڱó­°üÁ¶¿µ¼ú(n=2)ÀÇ ¼Ò°ß°ú ºñ±³ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐ¼®ÇÑ MR¼Ò°ßÀº ÀÚ±Ã
¿ÜÇü, Àڱ𢰣ÀÇ °Å¸®, ÀÚ±ÃÀÇ ½ÅÈ£°­µµ, °Ý¸·ÀÇ ½ÅÈ£°­µµ, µ¿¹ÝµÈ ºñ´¢»ý½Ä±â°è ÁúȯÀÇ Áø
´Ü°ú MR¿µ»ó¼Ò°ßÀÌ È¯ÀÚÀÇ Ä¡·á¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» ÈÄÇâÀûÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
°á °ú : MR¼Ò°ß¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ±âÇüÁø´ÜÀº Áߺ¹ÀÚ±ÃÀÌ 6¿¹(40%), ÀÚ±ÃÇü¼ººÎÀü 3¿¹(20%), Áß°ÝÀÚ
±Ã 3¿¹ (20%), ¾ç°¢Àڱà 2¿¹ (13%) ¹× ÀÏ°¢Àڱà 1¿¹ (7%)À̾ú°í, ÀÌÁß 13¿¹ (87%)¿¡¼­ MR
¿µ»óÀÌ ´Ù¸¥ °Ë»ç¼Ò°ß°ú ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù ÀÚ±ÃÀÇ ¿ÜÇüÀº Áߺ¹Àڱðú ÀÏ°¢ÀÚ±ÃÀº ¹Ù³ª³ª ÇüÅÂ, ¾ç
°¢ÀÚ±ÃÀº ÀÚ±ÃÀúºÎ°¡ ¿À¸ñÇÑ ÇüŸ¦ º¸¿´À¸³ª Áß°ÝÀÚ±ÃÀº Á¤»óÇüÅ¿´´Ù. Àڱ𢰣ÀÇ °Å¸®´Â
Áߺ¹Àڱðú ¾ç°¢Àڱÿ¡¼­ Áõ°¡µÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç ÀÚ±ÃÀÇ ½ÅÈ£°­µµ´Â ÀÚ±ÃÇü¼ººÎÀü 3¿¹¸¦ Á¦¿ÜÇÑ 12¿¹
¿¡¼­ Á¤»óÀ̾ú´Ù. °Ý¸·ÀÇ ½ÅÈ£°­µµ´Â 72¿µ»ó¿¡¼­ ¾ç°¢ÀÚ±ÃÀº Àڱñٰú µ¿ÀÏÇÏ¿´À¸³ª, Áß°ÝÀÚ
±ÃÀº Àú½ÅÈ£°­µµ¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. µ¿¹ÝµÈ »ý½Ä±â°èÁúȯ 5¿¹ (33%) Áß 4¿¹´Â MR¿µ»ó¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ßµÇ
¾úÀ¸³ª 1¿¹´Â MR¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ßµÇÁö ¾Ê¾ÒÀ¸¸ç ºñ´¢±â°è ÀÌ»óÀº 5¿¹(33%)¿¡¼­ µ¿¹ÝµÇ¾ú´Ù. 6¿¹
(40%)¿¡¼­ MR¿µ»óÀÌ Ä¡·á¹æÇâ ¼³Á¤¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÃÆ´Ù.
°í Âû : ¹»·¯°ü ±âÇüÀÇ Æò°¡¿¡ À־ MR¿µ»óÀº Áø´ÜÀ» Á¤È®ÇÏ°Ô ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú°í µ¿¹ÝµÈ »ý
½Ä±â°è ÁúȯÀÇ Æò°¡¿Í ÇâÈÄ Ä¡·á¹æÇâ ¼³Á¤¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¸Å¿ì À¯¿ëÇÑ °Ë»çÀÌ´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
Purpose : To evaluate the MR imaging of Mullerian duct anomalies(MDA) and analyze
its diagnostic accuracy, associated gynecologic diseases, and effect on treatment plan.
Materials and Methods : Twelve patients with suspected MDA and three with
incidentally-found MDA were included. Axial, sagittal and coronal images of T1-,
FSET2- or T2, proton density-and Gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighter images were
obtained with 1.5T(n=13) and 0.5T(n=13) and 0.5T(n=2) MR machines. On the basis of
Buttram and Gibbons' classification, MR images were analyzed and classified as
laparotomy(n=7), hysteroscopy(n=7), laparoscopy(n=3) or hystersalpinggraphy(n=2). These
were analyzed in terms of external contour of the uterus, intercorunal distance, signal
intensity of the uterus and septum, associated genitourinary diseases, and the influence
of MR imaging on treatment plan.
Results: A total of IS cases of MDA were accurately classified by MR imaging, as
follows: didelphyses(n=6 : 40%); ageneses(n=3 : 20%); septate uteri(n=3 : 20%) ;
bicornuate uteri(n=2 : 13%) and unicornuate uterus(n=1 : 7%). In 13 cases(87%) findings
corresponded with those of other examinations. The external contour of the uterus was
banana-shaped in the didelphys and unicornuate uterus, a fundal cleft in the bicornuate,
and normal in the septate ; intercornual distance was greater in didelphys and
bicornuate uteri. Except in three cases of agenesis, the signal intensity of the uterus
was normal ; in the septum, on T2WI, this was isosignal in the bicornuate uterus and
low in the septate, as compared with that of the myometrium. In four of five cases,
associated gynecologic diseases were found on MR imaging ; in five cases(33%), there
were associated urologic anomalies, and in six(40%), MR imaging influenced the
treatment plan.
Conclusion : MR imaging was valuable for the diagnosis of MDA and the
determination of associated gynecologic diseases, and also influenced the treatment plan.

Å°¿öµå

Pelvic organs; abnormalities; Pelvic organs; MR;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KoreaMed
KAMS