Advertisement

Normal Ultrasound Female Pelvic Anatomy

  • Vincenzo D’Addario
  • Asim Kurjak
  • Biserka Funduk-Kurjak
Chapter

Abstract

Ultrasound imaging has shown an extremely rapid evolution in the last two decades, thanks to the development of highly sophisticated both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) technology and blood flow mapping, which render ultrasound the first-line imaging modality for the evaluation of the female pelvis.

Keywords

Transvaginal ultrasound Female pelvis Uterus Ovaries Tubes 

References

  1. 1.
    Benacerraf BR, Abuhamad AZ, Bromley B, Goldstein SR, Groszmann Y, Shipp TD, Timor-Tritsch IE. Consider ultrasound first for imaging the female pelvis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:450–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saravelos SH, Jayaprakasan K, Ojha K, Li TC. Assessment of the uterus with three-dimensional ultrasound in women undergoing ART. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:188–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Panchal S, Kurjak A, Nagori C. 3D and 4D studies from human reproduction to perinatal medicine. J Perinat Med. 2017;45:759–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Uterine and ovarian perfusion during the periovulatory period assessed by transvaginal color Doppler. Fertil Steril. 1993;60:439–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kelsey TW, Ginbey E, Chowdhury MM, Bath LE, Anderson RA, Wallace HA. A validated normative model for human uterine volume from birth to age 40 years. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tetlow RL, Richmond I, Manton DJ, Greenman J, Turnbull LW, Killick SR. Histological analysis of the uterine junctional zone as seen by transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;14:188–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abuhamad AZ, Singleton S, Zhao Y, Bocca S. The Z technique: an easy approach to the display of the midcoronal plane of the uterus in volume sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25:607–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bakos O, Lundkvist O, Bergh T. Transvaginal sonographic evaluation of endometrial growth and texture in spontaneous ovulatory menstrual cycles: a descriptive study. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:799–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Persadie R. Ultrasonographic assessment of endometrial thickness: a review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002;24:131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Vries K, Lyons EA, Ballard G, et al. Contractions of the inner third of the myometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;162:679–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Müllerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod. 2015;303:569–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, Gordts S, Exacoustos C, Van Schoubroeck D, Bermejo C, Amso NN, Nargund G, Timmerman D, Athanasiadis A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li TC, Tanos V, Tarlatzis B, Farquharson R, Gianaroli L, Campo RT. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2016;311:2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Kudla M, Kottner J. 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. 2015;104:688–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bocca SM, Abuhamad AZ. Use of 3-dimensional sonography to assess uterine anomalies. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moini A, Mohammadi S, Hosseini R, Eslami B, Ahmadi F. Accuracy of 3-dimensional sonography for diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:923–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graupera B, Pascual MA, Hereter L, Browne JL, Úbeda B, Rodríguez I, Pedrero C. 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. 2015;46:616–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Tripalo A. Normal gynecological anatomy assessed by 2D, 3D Ultrasound and Color Doppler. In: Kupesic S, editor. Color Doppler and 3D ultrasound in gynecology, infertility and obstetrics. New Delhi: Jaypee Eds; 2003. p. 15–28.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurjak A, Kupesic S, Schulman H, Zalud I. Transvaginal color Doppler in the assessment of ovarian and uterine blood flow in infertile women. Fertil Steril. 1991;56:870–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ng EH, Chan CC, Tang OS, Yeung WS, Ho PC. Changes in endometrial and subendometrial blood flow in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(2):269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ng EH, Chan CC, Tang OS, Yeung WS, Ho PC. The role of endometrial blood flow measured by three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of pregnancy during in vitro fertilization treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;135:8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nandi A, Martins WP, Jayaprakasan K, Clewes JS, Campbell BK, Raine-Fenning NJ. Assessment of endometrial and subendometrial blood flow in women undergoing frozen embryo transfer cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28:343–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baldini D, Lavopa C, Vizziello G, Sciancalepore AG, Malvasi A. The safe use of the transvaginal ultrasound probe for transabdominal oocyte retrieval in patients with vaginally inaccessible ovaries. Front Womens Health. 2018;3(2):e1–3.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Higgins RV, van Nagell JR Jr, Woods CH, Thompson EA, Kryscio RJ. Interobserver variation in ovarian measurements using transvaginal sonography. Gynecol Oncol. 1990;39:69–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bozdag G, Salman MC, Mumusoglu S, Yapici Z, Gunalp S. Is ovarian volume estimation reliable when compared with true volume? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:44.e1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang MY, Chiang CH, Hsieh TT, Soong YK, Hsu KH. Use of the antral follicle count to predict the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:505–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ng EH, Tang OS, Ho PC. The significance of the number of antral follicles prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian responses in an IVF programme. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1937–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nelson SM, Klein BM, Arce JC. Comparison of antimüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as predictor of ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation in good-prognosis patients at individual fertility clinics in two multicenter trials. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):923–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Broekmans FJ, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A, Trew G, Olivennes F. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(3):1044–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Clewes J, Joergner I, Bonaki SD, Chamberlain S, Devlin L, Priddle H, Johnson I. SonoAVC: a novel method of automatic volume calculation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:691–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ata B, Seyhan A, Reinblatt SL, Shalom-Paz E, Krishnamurthy S, Tan SL. Comparison of automated and manual follicle monitoring in an unrestricted population of 100 women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:127–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deb S, Batcha M, Campbell BK, Jayaprakasan K, Clewes JS, Hopkisson JF, Sjoblom C, Raine-Fenning NJ. The predictive value of the automated quantification of the number and size of small antral follicles in women undergoing ART. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2124–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deichert U, Schleif R, van de Sandt M, Juhnke I. Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography (Hy-Co-Sy) compared with conventional tubal diagnostics. Hum Reprod. 1989;4:418–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Deichert U, Schlief R, van de Sandt M, Daume E. Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography for the assessment of tubal patency with gray scale imaging and additional use of pulsed wave Doppler. Fertil Steril. 1992;57:62–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Gynecological vaginal sonographic interventional procedures: what does color add? Gynecol Perinatol. 1994;3:57–60.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lanzani C, Savasi V, Leone FP, Ratti M, Ferrazzi E. Two-dimensional HyCoSy with contrast tuned imaging technology and a second-generation contrast media for the assessment of tubal patency in an infertility program. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1158–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo D’Addario
    • 1
  • Asim Kurjak
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Biserka Funduk-Kurjak
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical School University of BariBariItaly
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical School University of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  3. 3.International Academy of Perinatal MedicineZagrebCroatia
  4. 4.Ian Donald Interuniversity School of Ultrasound in MedicineZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations