Ультразвуковая диагностика аденомиоза. Обзор литературы и собственные клинические наблюдения

Обзор посвящен возможностям ультразвуковой диагностики аденомиоза. В течение 45 лет было опубликовано очень большое количество печатных работ, посвященных этому вопросу. К настоящему времени различными авторами предложено не менее 20 ультразвуковых критериев аденомиоза. Наибольшее практическое значение в настоящее время имеют прямые и косвенные ультразвуковые признаки аденомиоза, предложенные международным консенсусом MUSA. Диагностическая ценность ультразвукового исследования при диагностике аденомиоза, по данным различных авторов, составляет: чувствительность 72–91%; специфичность 49–90%; прогностическая ценность положительного результата 72–82%; прогностическая ценность отрицательного результата 49–80%; точность 56–63%. Наблюдается корелляция между ультразвуковыми признаками аденомиоза и клиническими проявлениями заболевания (в том числе между тяжестью клинических проявлений и количеством ультразвуковых признаков), хотя эту точку зрения поддерживают не все авторы. 

1. Давыдов А.И., Таирова М.Б., Михалева Л.М., Кавиладзе М.Г., Чилова Р.А. Аденомиоз. Что изменилось с появлением МКБ-11? Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии. 2021; 20 (2): 117–124. https://doi.org/10.20953/1726-1678-2021-2-117-124

2. Devlieger R., D'Hooghe T., Timmerman D. Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2003; 9 (2):139–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmg010

3. Shrestha A., Shrestha R., Sedhai L.B., Pandit U. Adenomyosis at hysterectomy: prevalence, patient characteristics, clinical profile and histopatholgical findings. Kathmandu Univ. Med. J. 2012; 10 (37): 53–56. https://doi.org/10.3126/kumj.v10i1.6915

4. Van den Bosch T., Van Schoubroeck D. Ultrasound diagnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis: State of the art. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2018; 51: 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.01.013

5. Bergholt T., Bergholt T., Eriksen L. et al. Prevalence and risk factors of adenomyosis at hysterectomy. Human. Reprod. 2001; 16 (11): 2418–2421. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.11.2418

6. Naftalin J., Hoo W., Pateman K. et al. How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum. Reprod. 2012; 27 (12): 3432–3439. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des332

7. Puente J.M., Fabris A., Patel J. et al. Adenomyosis in infertile women: prevalence and the role of 3D ultrasound as a marker of severity of the disease. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2016; 14 (1): 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-016-0185-6

8. Lazzeri L., Di Giovanni A., Exacoustos C. et al. Preoperative and Postoperative Clinical and Transvaginal Ultrasound Findings of Adenomyosis in Patients With Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis. Reprod. Sci. 2014; 21 (8):1027–1033. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719114522520

9. Walsh J.W., Taylor K.J., Rosenfield A.T. Gray scale ultrasonography in the diagnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1979; 132 (1): 87–90. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.132.1.87

10. Murao F., Hata K., Shin K. et al. Ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi. 1986; 38 (11): 2073–2077. PMID: 3540155

11. Siedler D., Laing F.C., Jeffrey R.B. Jr., Wing V.W. Uterine adenomyosis. A difficult sonographic diagnosis. J. Ultrasound Med. 1987; 6 (7): 345–349. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1987.6.7.345

12. Дамиров М.М., Шабанов А.М. Сопоставление ультразвуковых и морфологических критериев аденомиоза. Акушерство и гинекология. 2002; 5: 28–32.

13. Демидов В.Н., Хачатрян А.К., Адамян Л.В. Ультразвуковая диагностика эндометриоза. II. Внутренний эндометриоз. Ультразвуковая диагностика. 1996; 1: 32.

14. Давыдов А.И., Стрижаков А.Н. Современные аспекты патогенеза генитального эндометриоза. Акушерство и гинекология. 1997; 2: 44.

15. Hirai M., Shibata K., Sagai H. et al. Transvaginal pulsed and color Doppler sonography for the evaluation of adenomyosis. J. Ultrasound Med. 1995; 14 (7): 529–532. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1995.14.7.529

16. Буланов М.Н. Ультразвуковая гинекология: лекции по ультразвуковой диагностике в гинекологии. В трех томах. Том 1. М.: Издательский дом Видар-М, 2010. 268 с. ISBN 978-5-88429-134-8 (т.1) ISBN 78-5-88429-133-1

17. Zhang Y., Zhou L., Li T.C. et al. Ultrastructural features of endometrial-myometrial interface and its alteration in adenomyosis. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2014; 7 (4): 1469–1477. PMID: 24817942

18. Atzori E., Tronci C., Sionis L. Transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 1996; 42 (1): 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1159/000291887

19. Дамиров М.М., Кулаков В.И., Бакулева Л.П., Шабанов А.М., Слюсарь Я.П., Саркисов С.Э. Новые данные о патогенезе внутреннего эндометриоза. Акушерство и гинекология. 1993; 5: 28.

20. Exacoustos C., Brienza L., Di G.A. et al. Adenomyosis: three-dimensional sonographic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 37 (4): 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.8900

21. Van den Bosch T., Dueholm M., Leone F.P. et al. Terms, definitions, and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 46 (3): 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14806

22. Li M., Zong Z., Wang X., Zhang H. The Application Value of Transvaginal Three-Dimensional Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Adenomyosis of the Uterus. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 2026; 54 (5): 1113–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.70167

23. Harmsen M.J., Trommelen L.M., de Leeuw R.A. et al. Uterine junctional zone and adenomyosis: comparison of MRI, transvaginal ultrasound and histology. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 62 (1): 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26117

24. Reinhold C., Atri M., Mehio A. et al. Diffuse uterine adenomyosis: morphologic criteria and diagnostic accuracy of endovaginal sonography. Radiology. 1995; 197 (3): 609–614. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480727

25. Reinhold C., Tafazoli F., Wang L. Imaging features of adenomyosis. Hum. Reprod. Update. 1998; 4 (4): 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/4.4.337

26. Kepkep K., Tuncay Y.A., Göynümer G., Tutal E. Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; 30 (3): 341–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.3985

27. Atri M., Reinhold C., Mehio A.R. et al. Adenomyosis: US features with histologic correlation in an in-vitro study. Radiology. 2000; 215 (3): 783–790. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.215.3.r00jn06783

28. Cucinella G., Billone V., Pitruzzella I. et al. Adenomyotic cyst in a 25-year-old woman: case report. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20 (6): 894–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.04.022

29. Reeves M.F., Goldstein R.B., Jones K.D. Communication of adenomyosis with the endometrial cavity: visualization with saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 36 (1): 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7513

30. Van den Bosch T., de Bruijn A.M., de Leeuw R.A. et al. Sonographic classification and reporting system for diagnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 53 (5): 576–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19096

31. Dueholm M. Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2006; 20 (4): 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.01.005

32. Timmerman D. Adenomyosis. / In: I.E. Timor Tritsch, S.R. Goldstein. Ultrasound in gynecology. Churcill-Livingstone, 2007: 86–92.

33. Harmsen M.J., Van den Bosch T., de Leeuw R.A. et al. Consensus on revised definitions of morphological uterus sonographic assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis: results of a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 60 (1): 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.24786

34. Зыкин Б.И., Проскурякова О.В., Буланов М.Н., Огрызкова В., Соболь М.Ю. Стандартизация ультразвуковых исследований в гинекологии. Допплерографические нормативы артериального кровотока. Эхография. 2001; 2 (3): 289.

35. Xholli A., Scovazzi U., Londero A.P. et al. Angle of Uterine Flexion and Adenomyosis. J. Clin. Med. 2022; 11 (11): 3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113214

36. Tessarolo M., Bonino L., Camanni M., Deltetto F. Elastosonography: a possible new tool for diagnosis of adenomyosis? Eur. Radiol. 2011; 21 (7): 1546–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2064-z

37. Диомидова В.Н., Захарова О.В. Эластография сдвиговой волной в оценки жесткости структур матки в норме и при патологии у женщин детородного возраста. Ультразвуковая и функциональная диагностика. 2017; 4: S109.

38. Сенча А.Н., Кондратович Л.М., Быков А.Г., Адамян Л.В. Ультразвуковая эластография в диагностике аденомиоза. Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 3: 86–99. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.3.86-99

39. Vandermeulen L., Cornelis A., Kjaergaard Rasmussen C. et al. Guiding histological assessment of uterine lesions using 3D in vitro ultrasonography and stereotaxis. Facts Views Vis. Obgyn. 2017; 9 (2): 77–84. PMID: 29209483

40. Andreotti R.F., Fleischer A.C. The sonographic diagnosis of adenomyosis. Ultrasound Q. 2005; 21 (3): 167–170. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ruq.0000174751.34633.9a

41. Bromley B., Shipp T.D., Benacerraf B. Adenomyosis: sonographic findings and diagnostic accuracy. J. Ultrasound Med. 2000; 19 (8): 529–534; quiz 535–6. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2000.19.8.529

42. Exacoustos C., Morosetti G., Conway F. et al. New Sonographic Classification of Adenomyosis: Do Type and Degree of Adenomyosis Correlate to Severity of Symptoms? J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2020; 27 (6): 1308–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.788

43. Andres M.P., Borrelli G.M., Ribeiro J. et al. Transvaginal Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2018; 25 (2): 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.653

44. Neal S., Morin S., Werner M. et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis is not associated with adverse pregnancy outcome following single thawed euploid blastocyst transfer: prospective cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 56 (4): 611–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22065. PMID: 32349167

45. Krentel H., Keckstein J., Füger T. et al. Accuracy of ultrasound signs on two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound in prediction of adenomyosis: prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 62 (5): 739–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26197

46. Alson S., Jokubkiene L., Henic E., Sladkevicius P. Prevalence of adenomyosis features in women scheduled for assisted reproductive treatment, using the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment group definitions. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2024; 103 (6): 1142–1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14812

47. Khaladkar S.M., Dhande A., Shah R.N., KirdatPatil P.P. Application of the Morphological Uterine Scoring Assessment in Ultrasound for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. Cureus. 2024; 16 (11): e74709. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.74709

48. Yavuz O., Akdöner A., Özgozen M.E. et al. Prediction of adenomyosis according to revised definitions of morphological uterus sonographic assessment features. Front. Med. (Lausanne). 2024; 11: 1387515. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1387515

49. Biasioli A., Degano M., Restaino S. et al. The Udine Hospital Endometriosis Group. Innovative Ultrasound Criteria for the Diagnosis of Adenomyosis and Correlation with Symptoms: A Retrospective Re-Evaluation. Biomedicines. 2024; 12 (2): 463. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12020463

50. Kadam N., Khalid S., Jayaprakasan K. How Reproducible Are the Ultrasound Features of Adenomyosis Defined by the Revised MUSA Consensus? J. Clin. Med. 2025; 14 (2): 456. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14020456

51. Naftalin J., Hoo W., Nunes N. et al. Association between ultrasound features of adenomyosis and severity of menstrual pain. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 47 (6): 779–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog. 15798

52. Kobayashi H., Imanaka S. Understanding Ultrasound Features that Predict Symptom Severity in Patients with Adenomyosis: a Systematic Review. Reprod. Sci. 2024; 31 (2): 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01318-5

53. Maldutytė G., Opolskienė G., Rudaitis V., Ramašauskaitė D. The association between sonographic features and clinical symptoms of adenomyosis. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 2024; 52 (7): 846–850. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.23712

54. Jha S., Prakash N., Jha V.C., Sinha U. New MUSA classification of adenomyosis: correlation of symptoms and clinical severity with direct and indirect features. Prz. Menopauzalny. 2024; 23 (4): 185–191. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2024.145950

55. Valdés-Bango M., Ros C., Daza M. et al. Internal and external adenomyosis phenotypes: ultrasound features and association with clinical outcomes. Hum. Reprod. 2024: deae105. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deae105

56. Vannuccini S., Meleca C., Toscano F. et al. Adenomyosis diagnosis among adolescents and young women with dysmenorrhoea and heavy menstrual bleeding. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2024; 48 (5): 103768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103768

57. Matot R., Blickstein O., Leibner G. et al. Differences in the Sonographic Features of Adenomyosis and Concurrent Endometriosis Compared to Isolated Adenomyosis: A MUSA Criteria Analysis. J. Ultrasound Med. 2025; 44 (6): 1077–1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16667