Abstract
The technique, indications, contraindications and complications of Hysterosalpingography (HSG), a radiological investigation utilized to demonstrate the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes, are described in detail. The role of the technique in the diagnosis and management of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract is critically evaluated. Whilst the technique is very sensitive in detecting the presence of congenital uterine anomalies it cannot demonstrate the external uterine contour and therefore cannot provide a definitive classification. Other imaging modalities including ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are required for a definitive diagnosis. The technique is however of particular value in detecting concomitant uterine and tubal pathology and in the postoperative evaluation of patients who have undergone corrective uterine surgery for congenital anomalies and associated pathology.
The chapter illustrates the HSG appearances of a wide range of congenital anomalies, associated uterine and tubal pathology and postoperative follow up. The ESHRE-ESGE classification is used in all cases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Rindfleisch W. Darstellung des Cavum Uteri. Klin Wochenschr. 1910;47:780.
Cary WH. Note on determination of patency of fallopian tubes by the use of Collargol and the X-ray shadow. Am J Obstet. 1914;69:462–4.
Heuser C. Lipiodol in the diagnosis of pregnancy. Lancet. 1925;206(5335):1111–2.
Greenhill JP. Hysterography as an aid in the diagnosis of abdominal pregnancy: report of a case. JAMA. 1936;106(8):606–8.
Yoder IC. Chapter 1. Techniques normal anatomy and complications. In: Yoder IC, editor. Hysterosalpingography and pelvic ultrasound: imaging in infertility and gynecology. Boston/Toronto: Little Brown and Company; 1988. p. 2–35.
Simpson WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. RadioGraphics. 2006;26(2):419–31.
Chalazonitis A, Tzovara I, Laspas F, Porfyridis P, Ptohis N, Tsimitselis G. Hysterosalpingography: technique and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2009;38(5):199–205.
Ott DJ, Fayez JA, Chen MYM. Chapter 2. Technique of hysterosalpingography. In: Ott DJ, Fayez JA, editors. Hysterosalpingography: a text and atlas. Baltimore: Urban & Schwarzenberg; 1991. p. 13–32.
Hemingway AP. Chapter 94b. Hysterosalpingography. In: Grainger R, Allison DJ, editors. Diagnostic radiology. 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2001. p. 2227–38.
Hoffmann GE, Scott RT, Rosenwaks Z. Common technical errors in hysterosalpingography. Int J Fertil. 1992;37(1):41–3.
Hart D, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC. Doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK-2010 review Health Protection Agency. 2012; ISBN: 978-0-85951-716-4. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317134577210. Accessed 4 Mar 2014.
Stumpf PG, March CM. Febrile morbidity following hysterosalpingography: identification of risk factors and recommendations for prophylaxis. Fertil Steril. 1980;33(5):487–92.
Pittaway DE, Winfield AC, Maxson W, Daniell J, Herbert C, Wentz AC. Prevention of acute pelvic inflammatory disease after hysterosalpingography: efficacy of doxycycline prophylaxis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;147(6):623–6.
Forsey JP, Caul EO, Paul ID, Hull MG. Chlamydia trachomatis, tubal disease and the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic infection following hysterosalpingography. Hum Reprod. 1990;5:444–7.
Land JA, Gijsen AP, Evers JL, Bruggeman CA. Chlamydia trachomatis in subfertile women undergoing uterine instrumentation: screen or treat? Hum Reprod. 2002;17(3):525–7.
Chandler TM, Machan LS, Cooperberg PL, Harris AC, Chang SD. Mullerian duct anomalies: from diagnosis to intervention. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(984):1034–42.
Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A. Imaging of mullerian duct anomalies. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):E233–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.326125515. Accessed 24 Feb 2014.
Olpin JD1, Heilbrun M. Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;21(4):225–35.
Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezo Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, et al. The ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10(3):199–212.
Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233(1):19–34.
Amesse LS, Pfaff-Amesse T. Mullerian duct abnormalities. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/273534-overview#showall. Accessed 24 Feb 2014.
Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics. 2009;29(5):1353–70.
Khati NJ, Frazier AA, Brindle KA. The unicornuate uterus and its variants: clinical presentation, imaging findings, and associated complications. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(2):319–31.
Bibliography
Goldstein SR, Benson CB. Imaging of the infertile couple. London: Martin Dunitz; 2001.
Ott DJ, Fayez JA, Chen MYM. Hysterosalpingography a text and atlas. Baltimore: Urban & Schwarzenberg. 1991; p. 13–32. Chapter 2.
Yoder IC. Hysterosalpingography and pelvic ultrasound: imaging in infertility and gynecology. Boston/Toronto: Little Brown and Company; 1988.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hemingway, A.P., Trew, G.H. (2015). Hysterosalpingography. In: Grimbizis, G., Campo, R., Tarlatzis, B., Gordts, S. (eds) Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5145-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5146-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)