ROLE OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN THE EVALUATION OF CONGENITAL ANOMALIES OF SEMINAL VESICAL

Đình Âu Hoàng1,, Văn Ngọc Doãn2
1 Hanoi medical university
2 VNU Hanoi-University of Medicine and Pharmacy

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: Congenital anomalies of seminal vesicle (SV) are rare but this entity is the most common cause of post- testicular obstruction of male infertility. Among the diagnosis modalities, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered as safe, objective and most efficacy in the evaluation of congenital anomalies of SV. Material and method: Descriptive study in the male patient group who were suspected male infertility in Hanoi Medical University Hospital from 2017 to 2019 and from 2020 to 2022, underwent a seminal vesical MRI 1.5 Tesla with high- resolution T2W sagittal, coronal, axial, 3D T2WFS and T1WFS. Results: Eighteen (18) patients were diagnosed as congenital anomalies of seminal vesicle in this study. Among them, 4 patients with bilateral agenesis, 3 patients with unilateral agenesis only, 2 patients with unilateral agenesis and contralateral hypoplasia, 6 patients with unilateral hypoplasia, 1 patient with bilateral SV cyst, 2 patients with SV dilatation. All patients with SV agenesis and/or hypoplasia were azospermia in the sperm count. The patients with SV hypoplasia and/or cyst were not associated with renal agenesis or hypoplasia. Conclusion: Because of non radiation, excellent soft tissu resolution, objective viewing and reporting, magnetic resonance imaging is the modality of choice to evaluate the congeninal anomalies of seminal vesical.

Article Details

References

1. Bohyun Kim, Akira Kawashima, Jeong-Ah Ryu. (2009). Imaging of the Seminal Vesicle and Vas Deferens. RadioGraphics. 29, 1105-1121.
2. Chiang HS, Lin YH, Wu YN. (2013). Advantages of magnetic resonance imaging of the seminal vesicles and intra-abdominal vas deferens in patients with congenital absence of the vas deferens. Urology Journal. 2, 345–351.
3. Ozmen Z, Aktas F, Uluocak N. (2018). Magnetic resonance imaging and clinical findings in seminal vesicle pathologies. Journal of the Brazillian Society of Urology. 44(1), 86-94.
4. B. J. Pereira, L. Sousa, P. Azinhais. (2009). Zinner’s syndrome: an up‐to‐date review of the literature based on a clinical case. International Journal of Andrology. 41(5), 322-330.
5. Osman Ocal, Ali Devrim Karaosmanoglu, Musturay Karcaaltıncaba. (2019). Imaging findings of congenital anomalies of seminal vesicles. Polish Journal of Radiology. 84, e25-e31.
6. Hong-Fei Wu, Di Qiao, Li-Xin Qian. (2005). Congenital agenesis of seminal vesicle. Asia Journal of Andrology. 7(4), 449-452.
7. Gevenois PA, Van Sinoy ML, Sintzoff SA Jr. (1990). Cysts of the prostate and seminal vesicles: MR imaging findings in 11 cases. American Journal of Roentgenology. 155, 1021-1024
8. Denise Andréa Silva de Souza, Fábio Rueda Faucz, Lilian Pereira-Ferrari. (2018). Congenital Bilateral Absence of the Vas Deferens as an Atypical Form of Cystic Fibrosis: Reproductive Implications and Genetic Counseling. Andrology. 6(1), 127-135.
9. Lane VA, Scammell S, West N. (2014). Congenital absence of the vas deferens and unilateral renal agenesis: implications for patient and family. Pediatric Surgery International. 7, 733-736.