Reproductive Imaging

  • Miriam S. Krause
  • Tiffany D. Justice
  • Rhiana D. Saunders
  • R. Ashley Milam
  • Steven T. Nakajima


Several different techniques are available to image the female reproductive tract. These include transvaginal ultrasonography (TVU), saline infusion sonography (SIS), hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy), or performing a hysterosalpingogram (HSG) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedure. Each method has its indications, technical considerations, and limitations. TVU is easily available, relatively inexpensive, and gives information about uterine size, shape, location of leiomyomatas, and ovarian morphology. It gives limited information, however, on tubal and endometrial pathology. The SIS procedure is able to evaluate the endometrial cavity for polyps and/or an intracavitary leiomyoma. The SIS does not directly evaluate tubal patency. The HyCoSy procedure extends the SIS procedure by evaluating the fallopian tubes. The HyCoSy procedure may cause patient discomfort, can be limited in obese individuals, and requires a trained support staff and special equipment. The HSG procedure allows visualization of the entire fallopian tube, may increase post-procedure pregnancy rate, and is not limited by body habitus. It is a more invasive procedure, exposes the patient to radiation, may be associated with a reaction to contrast material, and is not available in all facilities. MRI gives additional information on the location of uterine leiomyomata, adenomyosis, and congenital anomalies and is not limited by body habitus, but it is expensive and not available in all facilities. This chapter will seek to differentiate these different methods and highlight the timely and appropriate use of each reproductive imaging procedure.


Fallopian Tube Uterine Cavity Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lower Uterine Segment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Thornton KL. Principles of ultrasound. J Reprod Med. 1992;37:27–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Medical ultrasound safety. Lauren, MD: AIUM; 1994, reapproved 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kieler H, Ahlsten G, Haglund B, Salvesen K, Axelsson O. Routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy and the children’s subsequent neurologic development. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:750–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Guidelines for cleaning and preparing endocavitary ultrasound transducers between patients. Accessed 15 Sept 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ACOG. Guidelines for women’s health care. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2002. p. 90.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yoshimitsu K, Nakamura G, Nakano H. Dating sonographic endometrial images in the normal ovulatory cycle. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1989;28:33–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindheim SR, Morales AJ. Comparison of sonohysterography to hysteroscopy: lessons learned and avoiding pitfalls. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002;9:223–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hill A. Sonohysterography in the office: instruments and technique. Contemp Obstet Gynecol. 1997;42:95–101.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Tsymbal T. Three-dimensional ultrasound inversion rendering technique facilitates the diagnosis of hydrosalpinx. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;38:372–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel MD, Acord DL, Young SW. Likelihood ratio of sonographic findings in discriminating hydrosalpinx from other adnexal masses. AJR. 2006;186:1033–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Balen FG, Allen CM, Siddle NC, Lees WR. Ultrasound contrast hysterosalpingography—evaluation as an outpatient procedure. Br J Radiol. 1993;66:592–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sokalska A, Timmerman D, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Lissoni AA, Leone FP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for assigning a specific diagnosis to adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:462–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Lai MP, Mais V, Paoletti AM, Melis GB. Transvaginal ultrasonography associated with colour Doppler energy in the diagnosis of hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1568–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bocca SM, Oehninger S, Stadmauer L, Agard J, Duran EH, Sarhan A, et al. A study of the cost, accuracy and benefits of 3-dimensional sonography compared with hysterosalpingogram in females with uterine abnormalities. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:81–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bermejo C, Martinez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Perez Pedregosa J, Barron E, et al. 3D ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with MRI. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:593–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Caliskan E, Ozkan S, Cakirogly Y, Sarisoy HT, Corakci A, Ozeren S. Diagnostic accuracy of real-time 3D sonography in the diagnosis of congenital mullerian anomalies in high-risk patients with respect to the phase of the menstrual cycle. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;38:123–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Saveli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of 3D ultrasound in the diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:808–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laifer–Narin SL, Ragavendra N, Lu DS, Sayre J, Perrella RR, Grant EG. Transvaginal saline hysterosonography: characteristics distinguishing malignant and various benign conditions. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:1513–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nannini R, Chelo E, Branconi F, Tantini C, Scarselli GF. Dynamic echohysteroscopy: a new diagnostic technique in the study of female infertility. Acta Eur Fertil. 1981;12:165–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deichert U, van de Sandt M, Laugh G, Daume E. Vaginal hysterokontrastsonographie zur differential-diagnostischen abklaerung eines pseudogestationssacks. Ultraschall Klin Prax. 1987;2:245–8.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ACOG Practice Bulletin #104, 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xia E, Xia E, Chen F. Severe complications of hysteroscopic surgeries: an analysis of 35 cases. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2001;36:596–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SRU practice guideline for the performance of sonohysterography. 2011.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hulka CA, Hall DA, McCarthy K, Simone JF. Endometrial polyps, hyperplasia, and carcinoma in postmenopausal women: differentiation with endovaginal sonography. Radiology. 1994;191:755–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clevenger-Hoeft M, Syrop CH, Stovall DW, Van Voorhis BJ. Sonohysterography in premenopausal women with and without abnormal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:516–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Epstein E, Ramirez A, Skoog L, Valentin L. Transvaginal sonography, saline contrast and hysteroscopy for the investigation of women with postmenopausal bleeding and endometrium greater than 5 mm. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;2001(18):157–62.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dubinsky TJ, Parvey R, Gormaz G, Curtis M, Maklad N. Transvaginal hysterosonography: comparison with biopsy in the evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:887–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wamsteker K, Emanuel MH, de Kruif JH. Transcervical hysteroscopic resection of submucous fibroids for abnormal uterine bleeding: results regarding the degree of intramural extension. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82:736–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mitri FF, Andronikou AD, Perpinyal S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sonnendecker EW. A clinical comparison of sonopathic hydrotubation and hysterosalpingography. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98:1031–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saunders RD, Shwayder JF, Nakajima ST. Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2171–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hamed HO, Shahin AY, Elsamman AM. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography versus radiographic hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of tubal patency. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105:215–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Richman TS, Viscomi GN, deCherney A, Polan ML, Alcebo LO. Fallopian tubal patency assessed by ultrasound following fluid injection. Radiology. 1984;152:507–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Campbell S, Bourne TH, Tan SL, Collins WP. Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy) and its future role within the investigation of infertility in Europe. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1994;4:245–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fenzl V. Effect of different ultrasound contrast materials and temperatures on patient comfort during intrauterine and tubal assessment for infertility. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(12):4143–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Exacoustos C, DiGiovanni A, Szabolos B, Roeo V, Romanini ME, Luciano D, et al. Automated 3D-coded contrast HyCoSy: feasibility in office tubal patency testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:328–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hamilton JA, Larson AJ, Lower AM, Hasnain S, Grudzinskas JG. Evaluation of the performance of hysterosalpingo contrast sonography in 500 consecutive, unselected, infertile women. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1519–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ahinko-Hakamaa K, Huhtala H, Tinkanen H. The validity of air and saline hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography in tubal patency investigation before insemination treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;132:83–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lindborg L, Thornburn J, Bergh C, Strandell A. Influence of HyCoSy on spontaneous pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1075–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ayida G, Kennedy S, Barlow D, Chamberlain P. A comparison of patient tolerance of HyCoSy with Echovist-200 and X-ray HSG for outpatient investigation of infertile females. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996;7:201–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, Abuin RA. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathologic findings. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:131–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thurmond AS, Jones MK, Matteri R. Using the uterine push-pull technique to outline the fundal contour on hysterosalpingography. AJR. 2000;175:356–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pinto AB, Hovsepian DM, Wattanakumtornkul S, Pilgram TK, Manzoni MA, Ambrosini G, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after fallopian tube recanalization: oil-based versus water-soluble contrast agents. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:69–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dessole S, Meloni GB, Capobianco G. Manzoni MA, Ambrosini G, Canalis GC. A second hysterosalpingography reduces the use of selective technique for treatment of a proximal tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1037–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
  46. 46.
    Noorhasan D, Heard MJ. Gadolinium radiologic contrast is a useful alternative for hysterosalpingogram in patients with iodine allergy. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1744.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    ACR practice guideline for the performance of hysterosalpingography. 2011.
  48. 48.
    Hunt RB, Siegler AM. Hysterosalpingography: techniques & interpretation. Chicago: Year Book Medical; 1990.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pittaway DE, Winfield AC, Maxson W, Daniell J, Herbert C, Wentz AC. Prevention of acute pelvic inflammatory disease after hysterosalpingography: efficacy of acute pelvic inflammatory disease after hysterosalpingography: efficacy of doxycycline prophylaxis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;147:623–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stumpf PG, March CM. Febrile morbidity following hysterosalpingography: identification of risk factors and recommendations for prophylaxis. Fertil Steril. 1980;33:487–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Soules MR, Mack LA. Imaging of the reproductive tract in infertile women: HSG, ultrasonography and MRI. In: Keye WR, Chang RJ, Rebar RW, Soules MR, editors. Infertility evaluation and treatment. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2005. p. 300–29.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fife IA, Wilson DJ, Lewis CA. Entrance surface and ovarian doses in hysterosalpingography. Br J Radiol. 1994;67:860–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Karande VC, Pratt DE, Balin MS, Levrant SG, Morris RS, Gleicher N. What is the radiation exposure to patients during a gynecoradiologic procedure? Fertil Steril. 1997;67:401–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Grammatikakis J, Theocharopoulus N, Gourtsoyiannis N. Radiogenic risks from HSG. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1522–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hurd WW, Wyckoff ET, Reynolds DB, Amesse LS, Gruber JS, Horowitz GM. Patient rotation and resolution of unilateral cornual obstruction during HSG. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:1275–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mettler Jr FA. Essentials of radiology. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2005.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kim MY, Rha SE, Oh SN, Jung SE, Lee YJ, Kim YS, et al. MR imaging findings of hydrosalpinx: a comprehensive review. Radiographics. 2009;29:495–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    DeFelice C, Rech F, Marin A, Stagnitti A, Valeati F, Cipolla V, et al. Magnet resonance hysterosalpingogram in the evaluation of tubal patency in infertile women: an observational study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:83–8.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Alorainy IA, Albadr FB, Abujamea AH. Attitude towards MRI safety during pregnancy. Ann Saudi Med. 2006;26:306–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    American College of Radiology Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Adverse reaction to gadolinium-based contrast media manual on contrast media. 3rd ed. Reston VA: American College of Radiology; 1998. p. 1–70.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Khatami SM, Mahmoodian M, Zare E, Pashang M. Safety of older generations of gadolinium in mild to moderate renal failure. Ren Fail. 2012;34:176–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:944–55.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:761–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Santos XM, Krishnamurthy R, Bercaw-Pratt JL, Dietrich JE. The utility of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging versus surgery for the characterization of muellerian anomalies in the pediatric adolescent population. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2012;25:181–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM, et al. Ultrasounography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, Menio A, Atri M, Zakarian R, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MRI imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;199:151–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ascher SM, Jha RC, Reinhold C. Benign myometrial conditions: leiomyomas and adenomyosis. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;14:281–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ascher SM, Arnold LL, Patt RH, Schruefer JJ, Bagley AS, Semelka RC, et al. Adenomyosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and transvaginal sonography. Radiology. 1994;190:8003–6.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Yoo RY, Sirlin CB, Gottschalk M, Chang RJ. Ovarian imaging by magnetic resonance in obese adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome: a pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:985–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Togashi K, Nishimura K, Kimura I, Tsuda Y, Yamashita K, Shibata T, et al. Endometrial cysts: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1991;180:73–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ha HK, Lim YT, Kim HS, Suh TS, Song HH, Kim SJ. Diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis: fat-suppressed T1-weighted versus conventional MR images. Am J Roentgenol. 1994;163:127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miriam S. Krause
    • 1
  • Tiffany D. Justice
    • 1
  • Rhiana D. Saunders
    • 1
  • R. Ashley Milam
    • 2
  • Steven T. Nakajima
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s HealthUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations