Clinical and Morphological Features of Focal Adenomyosis

Aleksey A. Shklyar*; Nina B. Paramonova, PhD; Evgeniya A. Kogan, PhD, ScD; Alexander I. Guus, PhD, ScD; Yuliya B. Kurashvili, PhD, ScD; Leila V. Adamyan, PhD, ScD.

Science Center of obstetrics, gynecology and perinatology named after academician V.I. Kulakov, Moscow, Russian Federation

*Corresponding author: Aleksey A. Shklyar, PhD student. Science Center of obstetrics, gynecology and perinatology named after academician V.I. Kulakov. Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail:

Published: September 24, 2013


Background: Adenomyosis is a very real problem encountered in modern gynecology due to the increase in the incidence, severity of the disease, and absence of effective methods of conservative treatment. The aim of the study was to investigate the clinical and morphological features of the focal and diffuse forms of adenomyosis.

Methods and Results: The study involved 70 women who applied to the Center with the diagnosis of ‘adenomyosis’. Examination included transvaginal sonography (TVS), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), and morphological study of the adenomyotic foci. With a probability of 99%, one can argue that focal adenomyosis (FA) in its clinical features is different from diffuse adenomyosis (DA) in all its major manifestations.

Conclusion: FA has unique morphological characteristics and clinical features. The diagnosis of FA should be based on a complex of clinical and instrumental data in conjunction with morphological process verification. Besides, there are difficulties in the diagnosis of FA, which is a major reason for the incorrect determination of the treatment tactic for patients. However, the application of MRS allows the preoperative identification of the biochemical structure of the focus and determination of its borders, and in the postoperative period, selection of optimal treatment tactics based on the identified morphological features of the removed adenomyotic foci.

focal adenomyosis; transvaginal sonography; magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
  1. Adamyan LV, Kulakov VI. Endometriosis. Moscow; Medicine; 2006. [Book in Russian].
  2. Vigano P, Parazzini F, Somigliana E, Vercillini P. Endometriosis: epidemiology and aetiological factors.  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004; 18(2):177-200.
  3. Endometriosis:  Science and Practice. Ed. Giudice LC, Evers JLH, Healy DL. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
  4. Levy G, Dehaene A, Laurent N, Lernout M, Collinet P, Lucot JP, et al. An update on adenomyosis. Diagn Interv Imaging  2013; 94(1):3-25.
  5. Kogan EA, Nizyaeva NV, Demura TA,  Ejova LS, Unanyan A.L. Morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics of adenomyosis in combination with endometrial adenocarcinoma. Arkh Patol 2010; 4:7–12. [Article in Russian].
  6. Damirov MM. Adenomyosis: clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment. Tver, 2002. [Book in Russian].
  7. Baskakov VI, Tsvelev SE, Cyra EP. Endometrial disease. St. Petersburg: Neva-Lux; 2002. [Book in Russian].
  8. Kurman RJ, Ellenson LH, Ronnett BM. Blaustein’s Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. Sixth Edition. Springer; 2011.
  9. Robboy SJ, Mutter GL, Prat J, Bentley R, Russel P, Anderson M. Pathology of the  female reproductive tract. 2nd edition; London: Elsevier (Churchill Livingstone); 2009.
  10.  Nucci MR, Oliva E. Gynecologic Pathology.  Philadelphia: Elsevier (Churchill Livingstone); 2009.
  11. Anichkov NM, Pechenikova VA, Kostyuchek DF. Clinical and morphological features of endometrial disease: adenomyosis, ovarian endometriosis, ovarian, extragenital endometriosis. Arkh Patol 2011; 4:5-10. [Article in Russian].
  12. Sammour A, Pirwany I, Usubutun A, Arseneau J, Tulandi T. Correlations between extent and spread of adenomyosis and clinical symptoms. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2002; 54(4):213-6.
  13. Levgur M. Diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review J Reprod Med 2007; 52(3):177-193.    
  14. Dueholm M,Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 19(6):505-12
  15. Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, Balogun M, Khan KS. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010 ; 89(11):1374-84.

The fully formatted PDF version is available.

Download Article

Int J Biomed. 2013; 3(3):166-169. © 2013 International Medical Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved.