Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reproductive Imaging

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Reproductive Medicine and Surgery

  • 1941 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

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 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 209.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Thornton KL. Principles of ultrasound. J Reprod Med. 1992;37:27–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Medical ultrasound safety. Lauren, MD: AIUM; 1994, reapproved 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Guidelines for cleaning and preparing endocavitary ultrasound transducers between patients. Accessed 15 Sept 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  5. ACOG. Guidelines for women’s health care. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2002. p. 90.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Yoshimitsu K, Nakamura G, Nakano H. Dating sonographic endometrial images in the normal ovulatory cycle. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1989;28:33–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lindheim SR, Morales AJ. Comparison of sonohysterography to hysteroscopy: lessons learned and avoiding pitfalls. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002;9:223–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hill A. Sonohysterography in the office: instruments and technique. Contemp Obstet Gynecol. 1997;42:95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel MD, Acord DL, Young SW. Likelihood ratio of sonographic findings in discriminating hydrosalpinx from other adnexal masses. AJR. 2006;186:1033–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Balen FG, Allen CM, Siddle NC, Lees WR. Ultrasound contrast hysterosalpingography—evaluation as an outpatient procedure. Br J Radiol. 1993;66:592–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. ACOG Practice Bulletin #104, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SRU practice guideline for the performance of sonohysterography. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Saunders RD, Shwayder JF, Nakajima ST. Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2171–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, Abuin RA. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathologic findings. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:131–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. ACR manual on contrast media. 2012. http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/Contrast%20Manual/FullManual.pdf.

  46. Noorhasan D, Heard MJ. Gadolinium radiologic contrast is a useful alternative for hysterosalpingogram in patients with iodine allergy. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. ACR practice guideline for the performance of hysterosalpingography. 2011. http://www.acr.org/~/media/B96D79998651431A8BD263017DE707A5.pdf.

  48. Hunt RB, Siegler AM. Hysterosalpingography: techniques & interpretation. Chicago: Year Book Medical; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Stumpf PG, March CM. Febrile morbidity following hysterosalpingography: identification of risk factors and recommendations for prophylaxis. Fertil Steril. 1980;33:487–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Fife IA, Wilson DJ, Lewis CA. Entrance surface and ovarian doses in hysterosalpingography. Br J Radiol. 1994;67:860–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Grammatikakis J, Theocharopoulus N, Gourtsoyiannis N. Radiogenic risks from HSG. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1522–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Mettler Jr FA. Essentials of radiology. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Alorainy IA, Albadr FB, Abujamea AH. Attitude towards MRI safety during pregnancy. Ann Saudi Med. 2006;26:306–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Ascher SM, Jha RC, Reinhold C. Benign myometrial conditions: leiomyomas and adenomyosis. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;14:281–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA

    Miriam S. Krause MD, Tiffany D. Justice MD, Rhiana D. Saunders MD & Steven T. Nakajima MD

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

    R. Ashley Milam MD

Authors
  1. Miriam S. Krause MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiffany D. Justice MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rhiana D. Saunders MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Ashley Milam MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steven T. Nakajima MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miriam S. Krause MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cleveland Clinic, Ob/Gyn & Women's Health Institute, Euclid Ave 9500, Cleveland, 44195, Ohio, USA

    Tommaso Falcone

  2. Duke University Medical Center, Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erwin Rd 2301, Durham, 27705, North Carolina, USA

    William W. Hurd

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Krause, M.S., Justice, T.D., Saunders, R.D., Milam, R.A., Nakajima, S.T. (2013). Reproductive Imaging. In: Falcone, T., Hurd, W. (eds) Clinical Reproductive Medicine and Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6837-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6837-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6836-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6837-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation