An Optimized Procedure for Non-Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women

Objective. To optimize a pelvic and lower abdominal cavity MRI protocol in the diagnosis of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women.
Material and methods. A total of 57 reproductive-aged women with complaints of CPP were examined. The first stage of all patients after clinical and laboratory examination for clinical indications was performed ultrasound of the pelvis and abdominal cavity with dopplerometry. In the second stage, all the patients underwent an MRI using the standard Protocol, and then a modified Protocol. The final diagnosis was based on the results of a comprehensive examination, which included a clinical and neurological examination, gynecological examination, pelvic and abdominal ultrasound, radiography of the ileosacral joints and lumbosacral spine, fibrocolonoscopy and laparoscopy with morphological examination of the operating material (according to indications).
Results. Forty-six (81%) patients were found to have gynecological factors for the development of CPP; 16 (28%) had extragenital factors. The examination results were verified by the data of surgical intervention (n = 16 (28%)), hysteroscopy (n = 21 (37%)), and laparoscopy (n = 9 (16%)) with morphological examination of biopsy specimens or surgical material.
Comparing with the standard pelvic MR protocol provided evidence for the high diagnostic value of the modified protocol statistically significantly (p < 0.05): 99.2% sensitivity and 99.6% specificity.
Conclusion. The developed non-contrast 1.5T MRI protocol for the pelvis permits MR images of the pelvis and adjacent anatomical areas to be obtained during one study without increasing time expenditures and upgrading equipment and software. The use of the protocol makes it possible to improve the quality of radiation diagnosis of gynecological and extragenital diseases in CPP and to recommend that the protocol in combination with other clinical and instrumental studies be introduced in clinical practice.

1. Speer L.M., Mushkbar S., Erbele T. Chronic pelvic pain in women. Am. Fam. Physician. 2016; 93 (5): 380–7.

2. Chronic pelvic pain in women (2018). Available at: http://www.mayoclinic.org/symptoms/pelvic-pain/basics/definition/sym-20050898 (accessed May 1, 2019).

3. Khan K.S., Tryposkiadis K., Tirlapur S.A., Middleton L.J., Sutton A.J., Priest L. et al. MRI versus laparoscopy to diagnose the main causes of chronic pelvic pain in women: a testaccuracy study and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 2018; 22 (40): 1–92. DOI: 10.3310/hta22400

4. Wozniak S. Chronic pelvic pain. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2016; 23 (2): 223–6. DOI: 10.5604/12321966.1203880

5. Beznoshchenko G.B., Moskovenko N.V., Kravchenko E.N., Kropmaer K.P., Tsygankova O.Yu., Beznoshchenko A.B. et al. Chronik pain with combined pathology of the pelvic organs at woman. Tavricheskiy Mediko-Biologicheskiy Vestnik. 2017; 20 (2–2): 7–12 (in Russ.)

6. Engeler D., Baranowski A.P., Borovicka J., Cottrell A., DinisOliveira P. et al. European Association of Urology. Guidelines on chronic pelvic pain. Available at: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-on-Chronic-PelvicPain-2018-large-text.pdf (accessed Jun 1, 2019).

7. Fraser M.A., Agarwal S., Chen I., Singh S.S. Routine vs. expertguided transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis of endometriosis: a retrospective review. Abdominal Imag. 2015; 40 (3): 587–94. DOI: 10.1007/s00261–014–0243–5

8. Huang S.Y., Seethamraju R.T., Patel P., Hahn P.F., Kirsch J.E., Guimaraes A.R. Body MR imaging: artifacts, k-space, and solutions. RadioGraphics. 2015; 35 (5): 1439–60. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2015140289

9. Gui B., Valentini A.L., Ninivaggi V., Micco M., Zecchi V., Grimaldi P.P. et al. Shining light in a dark landscape: MRI evaluation of unusual localization of endometriosis. Diagn. Intervent. Radiol.. 2017; 23 (4): 272–81. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2017.16364

10. Bazot M., Bharwani N., Huchon C., Kinkel K., Cunha T.M., Guerra A. et al. European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur. Radiol. 2016; 27 (7): 2765–75. DOI: 10.1007/s00330–016–4673-z

11. Di Paola V., Manfredi R., Castelli F., Negrelli R., Mehrabi S., Pozzi Mucelli R. Detection and localization of deep endometriosis by means of MRI and correlation with the ENZIAN score. Eur. Radiol. 2015; 84 (4): 568–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.12.017

12. Scardapane A., Lorusso F., Scioscia M., Ferrante A., Stabile Ianora A.A., Angelelli G. Standard high-resolution pelvic MRI vs. lowresolution pelvic MRI in the evaluation of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Eur. Radiol. 2014; 24 (10): 2590–6. DOI: 10.1007/s00330–014–3297–4

13. Lee S.R., Kim Y.J., Kim K.G. A fast 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging reconstruction for surgical planning of uterine myomectomy. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2018; 33 (2): e12. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e12

14. Juhan-Duguet V. Douleurs pelviennes chroniques. J. Radiol. Diagn. Intervent. 2015; 96 (5): 413–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jradio.2015.08.008

15. Plenge E., Poot D.H.J., Bernsenal M. Super resolution methods in MRI: can they improve the trade off between resolution, signal to noise ratio, and acquisition time? Magn. Reson. Med. 2012; 68 (6): 1983–93. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24187

16. Duarte A.L., Dias J.L., Cunha T.M. Pitffals of diffusion-weighted imaging of the female pelvis. Radiol. Bras. 2018; 51: 37–44. DOI: 10.1590/0100–3984.2016.0208

17. Yoshida T., Urikura A., Shirata K., Nakaya Y., Terashima S., Hosokawa Y. Image quality assessment of single-shot turbo spin echo diffusion-weighted imaging with parallel imaging technique: a phantom study. Br. .J. Radiol. 2016; 89 (1065): 20160512. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160512