Diagnostic ultrasound ( PDFDrive )

CHAPTER 15 The Uterus 559
13. Salem S. Gynecology. In: Rumack CM, Wilson SR, Charboneau JW, Levine
D, editors. Diagnostic ultrasound. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2011.
p. 547-612.
14. Wachsberg RH. Transrectal ultrasonography for problem solving ater
transvaginal ultrasonography of the female internal reproductive tract.
J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22(12):1349-1356.
15. Vitton V, Vignally P, Barthet M, et al. Dynamic anal endosonography
and MRI defecography in diagnosis of pelvic loor disorders: comparison
with conventional defecography. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(11):
1398-1404.
16. Dietz HP, Jarvis SK, Vancaillie TG. he assessment of levator muscle strength:
a validation of three ultrasound techniques. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor
Dysfunct. 2002;13(3):156-159.
17. Liu ZZ, Jiang YX, Dai Q, et al. Imaging of endometrial carcinoma using
contrast-enhanced sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30(11):
1519-1527.
18. Stoelinga B, Hehenkamp WJ, Brolmann HA, Huirne JA. Real-time elastography
for assessment of uterine disorders. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.
2014;43(2):218-226.
19. Sanders RC, Parsons AK. Anteverted retrolexed uterus: a common consequence
of cesarean delivery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(1):
W117-W124.
20. Goldstein SR. he endometrial echo revisited: have we created a monster?
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(4):1092-1096.
21. Ozcan T, Dogra V. he normal pelvis on ultrasonic imaging and anatomic
correlations. In: Fielding JR, Brown DL, hurmond AS, editors. Gynecologic
imaging. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2011. p. 5-20.
22. Merz E, Miric-Tesanic D, Bahlmann F, et al. Sonographic size of uterus
and ovaries in pre- and postmenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.
1996;7(1):38-42.
23. Platt JF, Bree RL, Davidson D. Ultrasound of the normal nongravid uterus:
correlation with gross and histopathology. J Clin Ultrasound. 1990;18(1):
15-19.
24. Verguts J, Ameye L, Bourne T, Timmerman D. Normative data for uterine
size according to age and gravidity and possible role of the classical golden
ratio. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(6):713-717.
25. Orsini LF, Salardi S, Pilu G, et al. Pelvic organs in premenarcheal girls:
real-time ultrasonography. Radiology. 1984;153(1):113-116.
26. Miller EI, homas RH, Lines P. he atrophic postmenopausal uterus. J Clin
Ultrasound. 1977;5(4):261-263.
27. Fleischer AC, Kalemeris GC, Entman SS. Sonographic depiction of the
endometrium during normal cycles. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1986;12(4):
271-277.
28. Forrest TS, Elyaderani MK, Muilenburg MI, et al. Cyclic endometrial changes:
US assessment with histologic correlation. Radiology. 1988;167(1):
233-237.
29. Bakos O, Lundkvist O, Bergh T. Transvaginal sonographic evaluation of
endometrial growth and texture in spontaneous ovulatory cycles—a descriptive
study. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(6):799-806.
30. Lenz S, Lindenberg S. Ultrasonic evaluation of endometrial growth in women
with normal cycles during spontaneous and stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod.
1990;5(4):377-381.
31. Nalabof KM, Pellerito JS, Ben-Levi E. Imaging the endometrium: disease
and normal variants. Radiographics. 2001;21:1409-1424.
32. Randall JM, Fisk NM, McTavish A, Templeton AA. Transvaginal ultrasonic
assessment of endometrial growth in spontaneous and hyperstimulated
menstrual cycles. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96(8):954-959.
33. Leone FP, Timmerman D, Bourne T, et al. Terms, deinitions and measurements
to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and
intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial
Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(1):
103-112.
34. Goldstein SR. Abnormal uterine bleeding: the role of ultrasound. Radiol
Clin North Am. 2006;44(6):901-910.
35. Lin MC, Gosink BB, Wolf SI, et al. Endometrial thickness ater menopause:
efect of hormone replacement. Radiology. 1991;180(2):427-432.
36. Osmers R, Volksen M, Schauer A. Vaginosonography for early detection
of endometrial carcinoma? Lancet. 1990;335(8705):1569-1571.
37. Shipley CF 3rd, Simmons CL, Nelson GH. Comparison of transvaginal
sonography with endometrial biopsy in asymptomatic postmenopausal
women. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13(2):99-104.
38. Aleem F, Predanic M, Calame R, et al. Transvaginal color and pulsed Doppler
sonography of the endometrium: a possible role in reducing the number
of dilatation and curettage procedures. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14(2):
139-145.
39. Giannella L, Mfuta K, Setti T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endometrial
thickness for the detection of intra-uterine pathologies and appropriateness
of performed hysteroscopies among asymptomatic postmenopausal women.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;177:29-33.
40. Smith-Bindman R, Weiss E, Feldstein V. How thick is too thick?
When endometrial thickness should prompt biopsy in postmenopausal
women without vaginal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24:
558-565.
41. Fleischer AC, Kalemeris GC, Machin JE, et al. Sonographic depiction of
normal and abnormal endometrium with histopathologic correlation.
J Ultrasound Med. 1986;5(8):445-452.
42. Farrer-Brown G, Beilby JO, Tarbit MH. he blood supply of the uterus. 2.
Venous pattern. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1970;77(8):682-689.
43. Mitchell DG, Schonholz L, Hilpert PL, et al. Zones of the uterus: discrepancy
between US and MR images. Radiology. 1990;174(3 Pt 1):827-831.
44. DuBose TJ, Hill LW, Hennigan Jr HW, et al. Sonography of arcuate uterine
blood vessels. J Ultrasound Med. 1985;4(5):229-233.
45. Atri M, de Stempel J, Senterman MK, Bret PM. Difuse peripheral uterine
calciication (manifestation of Monckeberg’s arteriosclerosis) detected by
ultrasonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1992;20(3):211-216.
46. Occhipinti K, Kutcher R, Rosenblatt R. Sonographic appearance and signiicance
of arcuate artery calciication. J Ultrasound Med. 1991;10(2):
97-100.
47. de Vries K, Lyons EA, Ballard G, et al. Contractions of the inner third of
the myometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;162(3):679-682.
48. Burks DD, Stainken BF, Burkhard TK, Balsara ZN. Uterine inner myometrial
echogenic foci. Relationship to prior dilatation and curettage and endocervical
biopsy. J Ultrasound Med. 1991;10(9):487-492.
49. Casey PM, Long ME, Marnach ML. Abnormal cervical appearance: what
to do, when to worry? Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(2):147-150.
50. Duield C, Gerscovich EO, Gillen MA, et al. Endometrial and endocervical
micro echogenic foci: sonographic appearance with clinical and histologic
correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(5):583-590.
51. Ergun A, Pabuccu R, Atay V, et al. hree sisters with septate uteri:
another reference to bidirectional theory. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(1):
140-142.
52. Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. he role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography
and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies:
a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(3):413-423.
53. Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, et al. he hessaloniki
ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum
Reprod. 2016;31(1):2-7.
54. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical
issues. Radiology. 2004;233(1):19-34.
55. American Fertility Society. he American Fertility Society classiications
of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to
tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine
adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(6):944-955.
56. Olpin JD, Heilbrun M. Imaging of müllerian duct anomalies. Clin Obstet
Gynecol. 2009;52(1):40-56.
57. Viscomi GN, Gonzalez R, Taylor KJ. Ultrasound detection of uterine
abnormalities ater diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure. Radiology.
1980;136(3):733-735.
58. Lev-Toaf AS, Toaf ME, Friedman AC. Endovaginal sonographic appearance
of a DES uterus. J Ultrasound Med. 1990;9(11):661-664.
59. Acien P, Acien M, Sanchez-Ferrer M. Complex malformations of the female
genital tract. New types and revision of classiication. Hum Reprod.
2004;19(10):2377-2384.
60. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. he ESHRE/ESGE
consensus on the classiication of female genital tract congenital anomalies.
Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2032-2044.