Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations pp 63–78Cite as

2D Ultrasound (2D US) and Sonohysterography (SHG) for the Diagnosis of Female Genital Anomalies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this chapter is to present the diagnostic tricks and tips of 2D ultrasound (2D US) and sonohysterography (SHG) in the estimation of female genital anatomy giving as examples figures of different types of uterine pathology and to critically evaluate the diagnostic performance of these techniques elucidating their role for screening and diagnosis. Brief description of the reviewed data: The 2D US and SHG can easily and reliably identify some female genital anomalies such as uterine agenesis, unicornuate uterus with a rudimentary horn and didelphic uterus. An isolated unicornuate uterus without a rudimentary horn may not be recognized with 2D US. It can be suspected by an extremely laterodeviation of the uterus, an endometrial stripe in transverse section with circle shape and the visualization of only one intramural tubal part. In case of didelphic uterus, two splayed endometrial layers at the 2D US transverse section are visualized and a complete separation of the uterine horns and cervical canals during SHG can be seen. 2D US recognize a bicornuate uterus with a large fundal cleft and a large divergence of the two uterine horns and the endometrial stripe. A septate uterus is suspected when in 2D transverse section of the uterus a double endometrial stripe without doubling of the myometrium tissue is seen. This transverse fundal view is similar in case of arcuate uterus. Clinical implications: 2D US is the initial diagnostic test for congenital anomalies. Some congenital anomalies are difficult to distinguish. The coronal or frontal view of the uterus cannot be obtained by 2D US like 3D US, therefore it is difficult to distinguish accurately arcuate from septate from partial bicornuate uterus. SHG shares limitations similar to those of conventional 2D TVS on the evaluation of external uterine profile and the global view of uterine pelvis. Open issues for further research: T-shaped uterine configuration needs to be better defined by ultrasound. Further color and pulsed Doppler studies of the uterine vascularization in case of congenital anomalies could be correlated to different fertility problems and obstetric outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:415–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Byrne J, Nussbaum-Blask A, Taylor WS, Rubin A, Hill M, O’Donnell R, Shulman S. Prevalence of Mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet. 2000;94:9–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rottem S, Timor-Tritsh IE, Thaler I. Assessment of pelvic pathology by high frequency transvaginal sonography. In Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology (Chervenak FA, Isaacson GC, Campbell S, eds). Little, Brown and Co. Boston, Toronto, London. 1st. ed., 1993. Cap. 135, pp 1629–41.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Leone FP, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Valentin L, Epstein E, Goldstein SR, Marret H, Parsons AK, Gull B, Istre O, Sepulveda W, Ferrazzi E, Van den Bosch T. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:103–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging endovaginal sonography and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 1992;183:795–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nicolini U, Bellotti M, Bonazzi B, Zamberletti D, Candiani GB. Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations? Fertil Steril. 1987;47:89–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L, Jurkovic D, Letterie GS, Haggerty M, Lindee G. A comparison of pelvic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging as diagnostic studies for mullerian tract abnormalities. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1995;40:34–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, Jauniaux E, Natucci M, Campbell S. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;5:233–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, Meriggiola MC, Gubbini G, Pilu G, Pelusi C, Pelusi G. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:808–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Faivre E, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, Gervaise A, Frydman R, Levaillant JM. 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. 2012;19(1):101–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mazouni C, Girard G, Deter R, Haumonte J-B, Blanc B, Bretelle F. Diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies in adults: evaluation of practice. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:219–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grimbizis GF, Campo R; On behalf of the Scientific Committee of the Congenital Uterine Malformations (CONUTA) common ESHRE/ESGE working group: Gordts S, Brucker S, Gergolet M, Tanos V, Li T-C, De Angelis C, Di Spiezio Sardo A. Clinical approach for the classification of congenital uterine malformations. Gynecol Surg. 2012;9:119–29.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233:19–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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;20:90–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fedele L, Ferrazzi E, Dorta M. Ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of “double uteri”. Fertil Steril. 1988;50:361–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Devi Wold AS, Pham N, Arici A. Anatomic factors in recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2006;24:25–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burchell RC, Creed F, Rasoulpour M, Whitcomb M. Vascular anatomy of the human uterus and pregnancy wastage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1978;85:698–706.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fedele L, Bianchi S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1995;22:473–89.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fayez JA. Comparison between abdominal and hysteroscopic metroplasty. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;68:399–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Uterine and ovarian perfusion during the periovulatory period assessed by transvaginal color Doppler. Fertil Steril. 1993;3:439–43.

    Google Scholar 

  21. The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:944–55.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brody JM, Koelliker SL, Frishman GN. Unicornuate uterus: imaging appearance, associated anomalies, and clinical applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:1341–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Marchini M, Franchi D, Tozzi L, Dorta M. Ultrastructural aspects of endometrium in infertile women with septate uterus. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:750–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Villa L, Arcaini L, Bianchi S. Re-examination of the anatomic indications for hysteroscopic metroplasty. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991;39:127–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Olive DL, Henderson DY. Endometriosis and mullerian anomalies. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;69:412–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Agnoli B, Tozzi L, Vignali M. Urinary tract anomalies associated with unicornuate uterus. J Urol. 1996;155:847–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sarto GE, Simpson JL. Abnormalities of the mullerian and wolffian duct systems. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1978;14(6C):37–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zanetti E, Ferrari LR, Rossi G. Classification and radiographic features of uterine malformations: hysterosalpingographic study. Br J Radiol. 1978;51:161–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L, Jurkovic D. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21:578–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simon C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2277–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Propst AM, Hill JA. Anatomic factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2000;18:341–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Homer HA, Li T-C, Cooke L. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Candiani GB, Ferrazzi E, Fedele L, Vercellini P, Dorta M. Sonographic evaluation of uterine morphology: a new scanning technique. Acta Eur Fertil. 1986;17:345–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Letterie GS. Structural abnormalities and reproductive failure: effective techniques of diagnosis and management. New York: Blackwell Science; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, Secaf E, Laros Jr RK, Hill EC. Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1990;176:715–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zreik TG, Troiano RN, Ghoussoub RA, et al. Myometrial tissue in uterine septa. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5:155–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Reuter KL, Daly DC, Cohen SM. Septate versus bicornuate uteri: errors in imaging diagnosis. Radiology. 1989;172:749–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Buttram VC, Gibbons WE. Müllerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32:40–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Goldberg JM, Falcone T. Effect of diethylstilbestrol on reproductive function. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaufman RH, Adam E, Binder GL, Gerthoffer E. Upper genital tract changes and pregnancy outcome in offspring exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980;137:299–308.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Herbst AL, Senekjian EK, Frey KW. Abortion and pregnancy loss among diethylstilbestrol- exposed women. Semin Reprod Med. 1989;7:124–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lev-Toaff AS, Toaff ME, Friedman AC. Endovaginal sonographic appearance of a DES uterus. J Ultrasound Med. 1990;9:661–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Salle B, Sergeant P, Awada A, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound studies of vascular and morphologic changes in uteri exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:2531–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. DeCherney AH, Cholst I, Naftolin F. Structure and function of the fallopian tubes following exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) during gestation. Fertil Steril. 1981;36:741–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, Isola Tiberina 1, Rome, 00186, Italy

    Caterina Exacoustos MD & Valeria Romeo MD

  2. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Isabella Cobuzzi MD

Authors
  1. Caterina Exacoustos MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabella Cobuzzi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valeria Romeo MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caterina Exacoustos MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Medical School, Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Grigoris F. Grimbizis

  2. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Genk Institute for Fertility Technology, Leuven, Belgium

    Rudi Campo

  3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Medical School, Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Basil C. Tarlatzis

  4. Leuven Institute for Fertility & Embryology, Leuven, Belgium

    Stephan Gordts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Exacoustos, C., Cobuzzi, I., Romeo, V. (2015). 2D Ultrasound (2D US) and Sonohysterography (SHG) for the Diagnosis of Female Genital Anomalies. 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_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5145-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5146-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation