Display options
Share it on

Insights Imaging. 2018 Apr;9(2):137-148. doi: 10.1007/s13244-017-0592-z. Epub 2018 Feb 15.

Imaging of the scrotum: beyond sonography.

Insights into imaging

Gian Carlo Parenti, Francesco Feletti, Aldo Carnevale, Licia Uccelli, Melchiore Giganti

Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging of Romagna, Section of Radiology, Ospedale Civile Santa Maria delle Croci, 48100, Ravenna, Italy.
  2. Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine, Section of Radiology, University of Ferrara, Via Ludovico Ariosto 35, 44121, Ferrara, Italy. [email protected].
  3. Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine, Section of Nuclear Medicine, University of Ferrara, Via Ludovico Ariosto 35, 44121, Ferrara, Italy.
  4. Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine, Section of Radiology, University of Ferrara, Via Ludovico Ariosto 35, 44121, Ferrara, Italy.

PMID: 29450854 PMCID: PMC5893488 DOI: 10.1007/s13244-017-0592-z

Abstract

The aim of this article is to describe the role of second-level imaging techniques after an initial ultrasonography evaluation in the assessment of scrotal diseases. While ultrasonography remains central as the primary imaging modality for the evaluation of pathologic conditions of the scrotum, the role of magnetic resonance imaging continues to evolve: it can actually be valuable as a problem-solving tool when sonographic findings are equivocal or inconclusive. Magnetic resonance imaging of the scrotum may provide accurate detection and characterization of scrotal diseases, well depicting the precise location of scrotal masses (intratesticular or extratesticular) and reliably characterizing benign conditions simulating neoplastic processes, thus preventing unnecessary radical surgery. Advanced magnetic resonance techniques, most of all diffusion weighted imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy, play in the meanwhile a more significant role in evaluating scrotal diseases.

TEACHING POINTS: • Multiparametric ultrasonography usually represents the initial imaging modality for approaching scrotal diseases. • MRI is well established as a problem-solving tool for inconclusive sonographic findings. • Advanced MRI techniques can be successfully applied in scrotal pathology assessment. • MRI is valuable in differentiating benign conditions from neoplastic processes. • CT plays a role in trauma assessment and cancer staging alongside PET/CT.

Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging; Male urogenital diseases; Scrotum; Testis; Ultrasonography

References

  1. Radiol Med. 2009 Apr;114(3):414-24 - PubMed
  2. World J Nephrol. 2014 Nov 6;3(4):277-81 - PubMed
  3. Urology. 2017 Jan;99:228-230 - PubMed
  4. Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Dec;10(12):703-12 - PubMed
  5. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2014 May;22(2):217-38, vi - PubMed
  6. Eur Radiol. 2016 Mar;26(3):613-21 - PubMed
  7. Br J Radiol. 2014 Dec;87(1044):20140472 - PubMed
  8. J Pediatr Urol. 2007 Aug;3(4):337-9 - PubMed
  9. Radiographics. 2003 Jan-Feb;23 (1):215-40 - PubMed
  10. Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Feb;26(2):215-20 - PubMed
  11. Asian J Androl. 2012 Jul;14(4):649-54 - PubMed
  12. Pol J Radiol. 2015 Sep 25;80:442-9 - PubMed
  13. Radiographics. 2015 Nov-Dec;35(7):1943-54 - PubMed
  14. Radiographics. 2015 Jul-Aug;35(4):1033-50 - PubMed
  15. Eur J Radiol. 2015 May;84(5):828-33 - PubMed
  16. Urologe A. 2011 Mar;50(3):322-7 - PubMed
  17. Urol Int. 2012;89(2):191-5 - PubMed
  18. Asian J Androl. 2016 Mar-Apr;18(2):182-5 - PubMed
  19. Urology. 2017 Feb;100:163-168 - PubMed
  20. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014 Aug;12(4):e147-50 - PubMed
  21. J Med Case Rep. 2016 Mar 31;10 :71 - PubMed
  22. Clin Nucl Med. 2014 Dec;39(12 ):1045-6 - PubMed
  23. Urol Int. 2015;94(3):369-72 - PubMed
  24. Med Hypotheses. 2013 Oct;81(4):544-6 - PubMed
  25. Clin Radiol. 2015 Sep;70(9):1026-31 - PubMed
  26. Eur J Radiol. 2015 Jul;84(7):1219-26 - PubMed
  27. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Sep;199(3):609-15 - PubMed
  28. Pol J Radiol. 2016 Jan 09;81:10-4 - PubMed
  29. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Feb;202(2):324-8 - PubMed
  30. J Urol. 2015 Jan;193(1):286-90 - PubMed
  31. Ultrasound Q. 2012 Mar;28(1):47-51 - PubMed
  32. J R Army Med Corps. 2013 Mar;159 Suppl 1:i21-5 - PubMed
  33. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Jul;26(1):100-8 - PubMed
  34. Pediatr Int. 2014 Feb;56(1):102-5 - PubMed
  35. J Trauma. 2009 Jan;66(1):239-42 - PubMed
  36. Magn Reson Med. 2006 Apr;55(4):749-54 - PubMed
  37. Hinyokika Kiyo. 2016 Jan;62(1):45-7 - PubMed
  38. Urology. 2002 Mar;59(3):419-23 - PubMed
  39. BMJ Case Rep. 2014 Jan 20;2014:null - PubMed
  40. J Ultrason. 2015 Sep;15(62):245-58 - PubMed
  41. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013 Jun;99(4):485-7 - PubMed
  42. Eur Radiol. 2015 Feb;25(2):323-30 - PubMed
  43. Radiol Med. 2012 Oct;117(7):1161-75 - PubMed
  44. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016 May;98 (5):e74-6 - PubMed
  45. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Oct;195(4):W268-73 - PubMed
  46. Int Surg. 2010 Jan-Mar;95(1):76-9 - PubMed
  47. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Jan;39(1):129-37 - PubMed
  48. N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 26;372(9):863 - PubMed
  49. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Mar;194(3):682-9 - PubMed
  50. Radiographics. 2010 May;30(3):665-83 - PubMed
  51. Asian J Androl. 2014 May-Jun;16(3):493-7 - PubMed
  52. Ultrasonography. 2016 Jul;35(3):180-97 - PubMed
  53. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Nov;34(5):1137-42 - PubMed
  54. Pediatrics. 2013 Jun;131(6):e1908-16 - PubMed
  55. Abdom Imaging. 2015 Mar;40(3):475-9 - PubMed
  56. Hum Reprod. 2010 Apr;25(4):847-52 - PubMed
  57. Eur Radiol. 2015 Dec;25(12):3586-95 - PubMed
  58. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2006 Jan-Feb;35(1):12-21 - PubMed
  59. Surg Clin North Am. 2017 Feb;97(1):161-172 - PubMed
  60. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2014 Mar 28;86(1):39-40 - PubMed
  61. Am Fam Physician. 2014 May 1;89(9):723-7 - PubMed

Publication Types