Advertisement

Der Gynäkologe

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 188–196 | Cite as

Sonographische Diagnostik bei Kinderwunsch

Relevante Befunde und therapeutische Optionen
Leitthema
  • 158 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Eine detaillierte sonographische Untersuchung im Rahmen der Sterilitätsdiagnostik ermöglicht es inzwischen, eine Vielzahl an Informationen hinsichtlich der morphologischen Integrität der gynäkologischen Organe bereits im Zuge der Erstvorstellung abzurufen. Mittels hochauflösender Transvaginalsonden können so in der konventionellen 2‑D- bzw. in der gezielten 3‑D-Volumensongraphie zwischen Zyklustag 5 und 9 fertilitätsrelevante Befunde wie das Vorhandensein von Müllerganganomalien, Auffälligkeiten des Endometriums bzw. der endometrialen-myometrialen Grenzschicht, des Uteruskavums, die Lokalisation von Leiomyomen oder eine Adenomyosis diagnostiziert werden. Im gleichen Setting ist es möglich, die Tubendurchgängigkeit (Hysterosalpingokontrastsonographie, HyCoSy) zu prüfen und die ovarielle Reserve durch einen antralen Follikelcount (AFC) abzuschätzen. Damit kann Frauen prinzipiell eine auf einen einzelnen Termin kondensierte, zeit- wie kosteneffiziente und dennoch ausführliche und in der Regel ambulant durchzuführende apparative Sterilitätsabklärung angeboten werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Adenomyosis uteri Ovarielle Reserve Müllerganganomalien Leiomyom Infertilität 

Ultrasound assessment in infertility

Relevant diagnoses and therapeutic options

Abstract

A comprehensive ultrasound evaluation during infertility work-up can provide detailed information regarding the morphology of the pelvic organs already during the first examination. Using high-frequency probes for conventional 2D ultrasound or 3D volumetry between cycle day 5 and 9, it is possible to rule out Mullerian duct anomalies, endometrial lesions, disruptions of the endometrial–myometrial junction, anomalies of the uterine cavity, leiomyomas and adenomyosis. In the same setting, it is possible to check for tubal patency (hysterosalpingo contrast sonography, HyCoSy) and to assess the ovarian reserve by means of an antral follicle count (AFC). All patients can obtain a reliable time and cost efficient infertility evaluation during a single outpatient visit.

Keywords

Adenomyosis Ovarian reserve Müllerian duct anomalies Leiomyoma Infertility 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

J. Weichert, M. Gembicki, A. Rody und D. Hartge geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Abdallah Y, Naji O, Saso S, Pexsters A, Stalder C, Sur S, Raine-Fenning N, Timmerman D, Brosens JJ, Bourne T (2012) Ultrasound assessment of the peri-implantation uterus: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:612–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alcázar JL, Martinez-Astorquiza Corral T, Orozco R, Dominguez-Piriz J, Juez L, Errasti T (2016) Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-aonography for the assessment of tubal patency in women with infertility: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 81:289–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almog B, Shehata F, Shalom-Paz E, Tan SL, Tulandi T (2011) Age-related normogram forantral follicle count: McGill reference guide. Fertil Steril 95:663–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ayida G, Chamberlain P, Barlow D, Kennedy S (1997) Uterine cavity assessment prior to in vitro fertilization: comparison of transvaginal scanning, saline contrast hysterosonography and hysteroscopy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 10:59–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B (2008) Which patients benefit from a 3D reconstructed coronal view of the uterus added to standard routine 2D pelvic sonography? AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:626–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B (2009) Three-dimensional ultrasound detection of abnormally located intrauterine contraceptive devices which are a source of pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34:110–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benacerraf BR, Groszmann Y (2012) Sonography should be the first imaging examination done to evaluate patients with suspected endometriosis. J Ultrasound Med 31:651–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benacerraf BR, Abuhamad AZ, Bromley B, Goldstein SR, Groszmann Y, Shipp TD, Timor-Tritsch IE (2015) Consider ultrasound first for imaging the female pelvis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212:450–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bermejo C, Martínez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Pérez Pedregosa J, Barrón E, Labrador E, Ruiz López L (2010) Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:593–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhagavath B, Ellie G, Griffiths KM, Winter T, Alur-Gupta S, Richardson C, Lindheim SR (2017) Uterine malformations: an update of diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Surv 72:377–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhatt S, Sumbul M, Rajpal R, Radhakrishnan G (2017) Value of „three dimensional multidetector CT hysterosalpingography“ in infertile patients with non-contributory hysterosalpingography: a prospective study. J Reprod Infertil 18:323–332PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brezinka C (2014) Tipps und Tricks im Gyn-Ultraschall: Follikelmessung im Ultraschall mit 2D- und 3D-Ultraschall. J Gynäkol Endokrinol 8:24–28Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carta G, Palermo P, Pasquale C, Conte V, Pulcinella R, Necozione S, Cofini V, Patacchiola F (2017) Office hysteroscopic-guided selective tubal chromopertubation: acceptability, feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of this new diagnostic non-invasive technique in infertile women. Hum Fertil (camb) 4:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen F, Quan J, Huang P, You X (2017) Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with four-dimensional technique for screening fallopian tubal patency: Let’s make an exploration. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24:407–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coelho Neto MA, Ludwin A, Borrell A, Benacerraf B, Dewailly D, da Silva Costa F, Condous G, Alcazar JL, Jokubkiene L, Guerriero S, Van den Bosch T, Martins WP (2017) Counting ovarian antral follicles by ultrasound: a practical guide. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18945 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deb S, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Raine-Fenning NJ (2010) Quantitative analysis of antral follicle number and size: a comparison of two-dimensional and automated three-dimensional ultrasound techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:354–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deutch TD, Joergner I, Matson DO, Oehninger S, Bocca S, Hoenigmann D, Abuhamad A (2009) Automated assessment of ovarian follicles using a novel three-dimensional ultrasound software. Fertil Steril 92:1562–1568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dudiak KM (2001) Hysterosonography: a key to what is inside the uterus. Ultrasound Q 17:73–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    El-Toukhy T, Campo R, Khalaf Y, Tabanelli C, Gianaroli L, Gordts SS, Gordts S, Mestdagh G, Mardesic T, Voboril J, Marchino GL, Benedetto C, Al-Shawaf T, Sabatini L, Seed PT, Gergolet M, Grimbizis G, Harb H, Coomarasamy A (2016) Hysteroscopy in recurrent in-vitro fertilisation failure (TROPHY): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387:2614–2621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faivre E, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, Gervaise A, Frydman R, Levaillant JM (2012) Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uterus compared with office hysteroscopy and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19:101–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farquhar C, Marjoribanks J, Brown J, Fauser B, Lethaby A, Mourad S, Rebar R, Showell M, van der Poel S (2017) Management of ovarian stimulation for IVF: narrative review of evidence provided for World Health Organization guidance. Reprod Biomed Online 35:3–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, Meriggiola MC, Gubbini G, Pilu G, Pelusi C, Pelusi G (2009) Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 92:808–813CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Graupera B, Pascual MA, Hereter L, Browne JL, Úbeda B, Rodríguez I, Pedrero C (2015) Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46:616–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grimbizis GF, Campo R (2010) Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: the need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril 94:401–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li TC, Tanos V, Brölmann H, Gianaroli L, Campo R (2013) The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 28:2032–2044CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Groszmann YS, Benacerraf BR (2016) Complete evaluation of anatomy and morphology of the infertile patient in a single visit; the modern infertility pelvic ultrasound examination. Fertil Steril 105:1381–1393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hackelöer BJ, Robinson HP (1978) Ultrasound examination of the growing ovarian follicle and of the corpus luteum during the normal physiologie menstrual cycle. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 38:163–168 (author’s transl)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hendriks DJ, Kwee J, Mol BW, te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ (2007) Ultrasonography as a tool for the prediction of outcome in IVF patients: a comparative meta-analysis of ovarian volume and antral follicle count. Fertil Steril 87:764–775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang M, Li X, Guo P, Yu Z, Xu Y, Wei Z (2017) The abnormal expression of oxytocin receptors in the uterine junctional zone in women with endometriosis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 15:1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Imboden S, Müller M, Raio L, Mueller MD, Tutschek B (2014) Clinical significance of 3D ultrasound compared to MRI in uterine malformations. Ultraschall Med 35:440–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jeelani R, Puscheck EE (2017) Imaging and the infertility evaluation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 60:93–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaproth-Joslin K, Dogra V (2013) Imaging of female infertility: a pictorial guide to the hysterosalpingography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging findings of the congenital and acquired causes of female infertility. Radiol Clin North Am 51:967–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klenov VE, van Voorhis BJ (2017) Ultrasound in infertility treatments. Clin Obstet Gynecol 60:108–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lamazou F, Arbo E, Salama S, Grynberg M, Frydman R, Fanchin R (2010) Reliability of automated volumetric measurement of multiple growing follicles in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 94:2172–2176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Johns DA, Luciano AA (2011) Can hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography replace hysterosalpingography in confirming tubal blockage after hysteroscopic sterilization and in the evaluation of the uterus and tubes in infertile patients? Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:79.e1–79.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Luciano AA (2014) Contrast ultrasonography for tubal patency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:994–998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Kudla M, Kottner J (2015) Reliability of the European society of human reproduction and embryology/European society for gynaecological endoscopy and American society for reproductive medicine classification systems for congenital uterine anomalies detected using three-dimensional ultrasonography. Fertil Steril 104:688–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ludwin A, Martins WP, Ludwin I (2017) Uterine cavity imaging, volume estimation and quantification of degree of deformity using automatic volume calculation: description of technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 50:138–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ludwin I, Ludwin A, Wiechec M, Nocun A, Banas T, Basta P, Pitynski K (2017) Accuracy of hysterosalpingo-foam sonography in comparison to hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with air/saline and to laparoscopy with dye. Hum Reprod 32:758–769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ludwin A, Nastri CO, Ludwin I, Martins WP (2017) The „flaming tube“ sign at hysterosalpingo-lidocaine-foam sonography combined with Power Doppler imaging (HyLiFoSy-PD): description of the technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17420 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Naftalin J, Jurkovic D (2009) The endometrial-myometrial junction: a fresh look at a busy crossing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Naftalin J, Hoo W, Nunes N, Mavrelos D, Nicks H, Jurkovic D (2012) Inter- and intraobserver variability in three-dimensional ultrasound assessment of the endometrial-myometrial junction and factors affecting its visualization. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:587–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nawroth F, Ludwig M, Gnoth C, Krüssel J, Albring C, Rabe T (2014) Bewertung von ovarieller Reserve und Fertilität mit steigendem Lebensalter. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol 11:6–11Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Oppelt P, Renner SP, Brucker S, Strissel PL, Strick R, Oppelt PG, Doerr HG, Schott GE, Hucke J, Wallwiener D, Beckmann MW (2005) The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex-associated Malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril 84:1493–1497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Piccioni MG, Riganelli L, Filippi V, Fuggetta E, Colagiovanni V, Imperiale L, Caccetta J, Panici PB, Porpora MG (2017) Sonohysterosalpingography: comparison of foam and saline solution. J Clin Ultrasound 45:67–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rodriguez A, Guillén JJ, López MJ, Vassena R, Coll O, Vernaeve V (2014) Learning curves in 3‑dimensional sonographic follicle monitoring during controlled ovarian stimulation. J Ultrasound Med 33:649–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sakhel K, Benson CB, Platt LD, Goldstein SR, Benacerraf BR (2013) Begin with the basics: role of 3-dimensional sonography as a first-line imaging technique in the cost-effective evaluation of gynecologic pelvic disease. J Ultrasound Med 32:381–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC (2008) Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 14:415–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Saravelos SH, Jayaprakasan K, Ojha K, Li TC (2017) Assessment of the uterus with three-dimensional ultrasound in women undergoing ART. Hum Reprod Update 23:188–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Saunders RD, Shwayder JM, Nakajima ST (2011) Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril 95:2171–2179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tal R, Seifer DB (2017) Ovarian reserve testing: a user’s guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217:129–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vandekerckhove F, Bracke V, De Sutter P (2014) The value of automated follicle volume measurements in IVF/ICSI. Front Surg 1:18CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Votino A, Van den Bosch T, Installé AJ, Van Schoubroeck D, Kaijser J, Kacem Y, De Moor B, Van Pachterbeke C, Timmerman D (2015) Optimizing the ultrasound visualization of the endometrial-myometrial junction (EMJ). Facts Views Vis Obgyn 7:60–63PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang Y, Qian L (2016) Three- or four-dimensional hysterosalpingo contrast sonography for diagnosing tubal patency in infertile females: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20151013 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wertheimer A, Nagar R, Oron G, Meizner I, Fisch B, Ben-Haroush A (2017) Fertility treatment outcomes after follicle tracking with standard 2‑dimensional sonography versus 3‑dimensional sonography-based automated volume count: prospective study. J Ultrasound Med.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14421 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bereich Pränatalmedizin und Spezielle Geburtshilfe, Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und GeburtshilfeUniversitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus LübeckLübeckDeutschland

Personalised recommendations