Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 20:77 | Cite as

Advanced Imaging in Female Infertility

  • Carolyn F. Dishuck
  • Jordan D. Perchik
  • Kristin K. Porter
  • Deidre D. GunnEmail author
New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and K Porter, Section Editors)
  • 62 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review highlights the role of imaging in the diagnosis and management of reproductive disorders. The additional information that imaging studies can contribute to reproductive medicine is emphasized, including the role of pelvic ultrasonography (US, including sonohysterography and contrast-enhanced hysterosalpingosonography), hysterosalpingography (HSG), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the female reproductive tract. In addition, the implications of congenital causes of infertility on the urinary tract in females are reviewed.

Recent Findings Summary

While the evaluation of infertility in women is initially focused on the assessment of ovulation via serum hormone levels, imaging plays a role in evaluating other causes of infertility. Recent research in this field focuses on the establishment of a comprehensive single imaging study for the assessment of female reproductive disorders. Two proposed methods are MR hysterosalpingography and Fertiliscan, a combination of high-quality 3D ultrasound and assessment of tubal patency with hysterosalpingo-foam-sonography, though more research is needed to determine the risks and benefits of each method, as well as their reliability.

Keywords

Reproductive medicine Sonohysterography Contrast-enhanced hysterosalpingosonography Hysterosalpingography (HSG) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Carolyn F. Dishuck, Jordan D. Perchik, and Deidre D. Gunn each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Kristin K. Porter is a section editor for Current Urology Reports.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1520–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• Infertility Workup for the Women’s Health Specialist: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 781 (2019). Obstet Gynecol 133 (6):e377-e384.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003271 Current recommendations of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) for the workup of infertility, including the role of imaging.
  3. 3.
    Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62:2–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.03.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. Mean age of mothers is on the rise: United States, 2000-2014. NCHS Data Brief. 2016;(232):1–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mittal PK, Little B, Harri PA, Miller FH, Alexander LF, Kalb B, et al. Role of imaging in the evaluation of male infertility. RadioGraphics. 2017;37(3):837–54.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vickramarajah S, Stewart V, van Ree K, Hemingway AP, Crofton ME, Bharwani N. Subfertility: what the radiologist needs to know. RadioGraphics. 2017;37(5):1587–602.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017170053.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gnoth C, Godehardt E, Frank-Herrmann P, Friol K, Tigges J, Freundl G. Definition and prevalence of subfertility and infertility. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(5):1144–7.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):e44–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address Aao, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):530–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ludwin A, Pityński K, Ludwin I, Banas T, Knafel A. Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):90–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pleş L, Alexandrescu C, Ionescu CA, Arvătescu CA, Vladareanu S, Moga MA. Three-dimensional scan of the uterine cavity of infertile women before assisted reproductive technology use. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(41):e12764–4.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American College of O, Gynecologists’ Committee on Gynecologic P. Technology assessment no. 12: sonohysterography. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(2):e38–42.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dijkman AB, Mol BWJ, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PMM, Hogerzeil HV. Can hysterosalpingocontrast-sonography replace hysterosalpingography in the assessment of tubal subfertility? Eur J Radiol. 2000;35(1):44–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(99)00127-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • Levaillant J-M, Pasquier M, Massin N. A novel concept for female infertility exploration: the Fertiliscan©, a dedicated all-in-one 3D ultrasound exploration. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48(5):363–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.01.008 Introduces an innovative comprehensive examination for evaluating female infertility with a combination of high quality 3D ultrasound and assessment of tubal patency with hysterosalpingo-foam-sonography. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Exacoustos C, Pizzo A, Lazzeri L, Pietropolli A, Piccione E, Zupi E. Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo contrast sonography with gel foam: methodology and feasibility to obtain 3-dimensional volumes of tubal shape. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(5):827–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.04.007 Demonstrates that the novel hysterosalpingo-foam-sonography is a well-tolerated method for the evaluation of tubal course and patency. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fukunaga T, Fujii S, Inoue C, Mukuda N, Murakami A, Tanabe Y, et al. The spectrum of imaging appearances of Müllerian duct anomalies: focus on MR imaging. Jpn J Radiol. 2017;35(12):697–706.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-017-0681-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Volondat M, Fontas E, Delotte J, Fatfouta I, Chevallier P, Chassang M. Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in diagnostic work-up of female infertility – comparison with conventional hysterosalpingography: a randomised study. EurRadiol. 2019;29(2):501–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5572-2 Compares the diagnostic accuracy of MR-HSG with conventional radiographic HSG demonstrating comparable performance and reduced patient discomfort. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tran-Harding K, Nair RT, Dawkins A, Ayoob A, Owen J, Deraney S, et al. Endometriosis revisited: an imaging review of the usual and unusual manifestations with pathological correlation. Clin Imaging. 2018;52:163–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bazot M, Daraï E. Diagnosis of deep endometriosis: clinical examination, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and other techniques. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(6):886–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, Hillstrom MM. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. RadioGraphics. 2009;29(5):1353–70.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.295095047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramanathan S, Kumar D, Khanna M, Al Heidous M, Sheikh A, Virmani V, et al. Multi-modality imaging review of congenital abnormalities of kidney and upper urinary tract. World J Radiol. 2016;8(2):132–41.  https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn F. Dishuck
    • 1
  • Jordan D. Perchik
    • 2
  • Kristin K. Porter
    • 2
  • Deidre D. Gunn
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.University of Alabama School of MedicineBirminghamUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  3. 3.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations