Correlation or confusion: The need for accurate terminology when comparing magnetic resonance imaging and clinical assessment of congenital vaginal anomalies

ObjectiveTo examine the terminology used when describing clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in the investigation of complex congenital Mullerian anomalies.Patients and MethodsForty-four girls and women with complex congenital Mullerian anomalies underwent vaginal examination and pelvic MRI. The findings from both procedures were compared. Different terms used to refer to the vagina were noted. Where clinical and MRI results were discordant, findings and terminology were reviewed by the multidisciplinary team.ResultsEleven different terms were used to describe vaginal anatomy. In 10 cases (23%) clinical and MRI findings appeared discordant. On review, it became clear that in all but two cases identical findings were being described using different vocabulary.ConclusionAt present, there is no standard descriptive terminology recommended for these anomalies and clinical confusion can arise. A uniform protocol for terminology should be agreed between specialists undertaking this work.