Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sonohysterography in Reproductive Medicine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ultrasound Imaging in Reproductive Medicine

Abstract

Sonohysterography (SHG) is a simple, cost-effective, safe, minimally invasive ultrasound (US) imaging technique for the evaluation of congenital and acquired uterine abnormalities. The goal of SHG is to visualize endometrial cavity in more detail than is possible with routine 2D or 3D transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS). Sterile saline is injected to distend the uterine cavity and serve as a contrast for its US visualization. Synonym names for this procedure are saline infusion sonography (SIS), hysterosonography (HSN), and gel instillation sonography (GIS, where gel is used instead of saline). Randomized control trial, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses have all shown that with the increased resolution of US, SHG has comparable sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in diagnosing intrauterine abnormalities to hysteroscopy (the former gold standard for intrauterine evaluation). Published guidelines by AIUM and ACOG are easy to implement in routine gynecological and reproductive medicine practice. While using thin flexible catheters, placing them inside the cervix, and injecting the warm saline slowly, this procedure can be pain free. SHG can serve as a first-line test for screening and evaluation of the uterine cavity for the diagnosis of infertility and before ART.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
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. Randolph JR, Ying YK, Maier DB, Schmidt CL, Riddick DH. Comparison of real-time ultrasonography, hysterosalpingography, and laparoscopy/hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine abnormalities and tubal patency. Fertil Steril. 1986;46:828–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Syrop C, Sahakian V. Transvaginal sonographic detection of endometrial polyps with fluid contrast augmentation. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:1041–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Parsons A, Lense J. Sonohysterography for endometrial abnormalities: preliminary results. J Clin Ultrasound. 1993;21:87–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bozdag G, Aksan G, Esinler I, Yarali H. What is the role of office hysteroscopy in women with failed IVF cycles? Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:410–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fatemi HM, Kasius JC, Timmermans A, van Disseldorp J, Fauser BC, Devroey P, Broekmans FJ. Prevalence of unsuspected uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by office hysteroscopy prior to in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(8):1959–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bosteels J, Kasius J, Weyers S, Broekmans FJ, Mol BW, D’Hooghe TM. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD009461. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub2.

    Google Scholar 

  7. van Dongen H, de Kroon CD, Jacobi CE, Trimbos JB, Jansen FW. Diagnostic hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2007;114(6):664–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Taylor E, Gomel V. The uterus and fertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Voorhis BJ. Ultrasound assessment of the uterus and fallopian tube in infertile women. Semin Reprod Med. 2008;26:232–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Devroey P, Fauser BCJM, Diedrich K, and on behalf of the Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR) Workshop Group 2008. Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:391–408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grimbizis GF, Tsolakidis D, Mikos T, Anagnostou E, Asimakopoulos E, Stamatopoulos P, et al. A prospective comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, saline infusion sonohysterography, and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of endometrial pathology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2720–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brown SE, Coddington CC, Schnorr J, Toner JP, Gibbons W, Oehninger S. Evaluation of outpatient hysteroscopy, saline infusion hysterosonography, and hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(5):1029–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tur-Kaspa I, Gal M, Hartman M, Hartman J, Hartman A. A prospective evaluation of uterine abnormalities by saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) in 1009 women with infertility or abnormal uterine bleeding. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:1731–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ayida G, Chamberlain P, Barlow D, et al. Uterine cavity assessment prior to in vitro fertilization: comparison of transvaginal scanning, saline contrast hysterosonography and hysteroscopy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;10(1):59–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Loverro G, Nappi L, Vicino M, et al. Uterine cavity assessment in infertile women: comparison of transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;100(1):67–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. de Kroon CD, de Bock GH, Dieben SW, Jansen FW. Saline contrast hysterosonography in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2003;110:938–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ragni G, Diaferia D, Vegetti W, Colombo M, Arnoldi M, Crosignani PG. Effectiveness of sonohysterography in infertile patient work-up: a comparison with transvaginal ultrasonography and hysteroscopy. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;59:184–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bingol B, Gunenc Z, Gedikbasi A, Guner H, Tasdemir S, Tiras B. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(1):54–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Hanegem N, Breijer MC, Khan KS, Clark TJ, Burger MP, Mol BW, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of the endometrium in postmenopausal bleeding: an evidence-based approach. Maturitas. 2011;68(2):155–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yang T, Pandya A, Marcal L, Bude RO, Platt JF, Bedi DG, Elsayes KM. Sonohysterography: principles, technique and role in diagnosis of endometrial pathology. World J Radiol. 2013;5(3):81–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yauger BJ, Feinberg EC, Levens ED, Gustofson RL, Larsen FW, DeCherney AH. Pre-cycle saline infusion sonography minimizes assisted reproductive technologies cycle cancellation due to endometrial polyps. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1324–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shokeir T, Abdelshaheed M. Sonohysterography as a first-line evaluation for uterine abnormalities in women with recurrent failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1321–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Voorhis BJ, et al. What do consistently high-performing in vitro fertilization programs in the U.S. do? Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1346–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kasius JC, Eijkemans RJ, Mol BW, Fauser BC, Fatemi HM, Broekmans FJ. Cost-effectiveness of hysteroscopy screening for infertile women. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(6):619–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim AH, Rone HM. Cost of sonohysterographic (SHG) versus hysteroscopic (HS) screening prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF). Fertil Steril. 2006;86(3 Suppl):S52–3.O-124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. AIUM practice guideline for ultrasonography in reproductive medicine. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(1):128–37.

    Google Scholar 

  28. ACOG technology assessment no. 8: sonohysterography. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(6):1325 (update of ACOG Technology Assessment in Obstetrics and Gynecology no. 5: sonohysterography. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1467–9).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Choudry A, Shukr I, Khan S, Hafeez H, Jamal S, Anwer A. Acceptability and accuracy of saline infusion sonohysterography in women with postmenopausal bleeding. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010;20(9):571–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Goldstein SR. Modern evaluation of the endometrium. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(1):168–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Moschos E, Ashfaq R, McIntire DD, Liriano B, Twickler DM. Saline-infusion sonography endometrial sampling compared with endometrial biopsy in diagnosing endometrial pathology. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(4):881–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Allison SJ, Horrow MM, Kim HY, Lev-Toaff AS. Saline-infused sonohysterography: tips for achieving greater success. Radiographics. 2011;31(7):1991–2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. No. 104, May 2009. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1180–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ahmad G, Duffy J, Watson AJ. Pain relief in hysterosalpingography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD006106.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ahmad G, Attarbashi S, O’Flynn H, Watson AJ. Pain relief in office gynaecology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;155:3–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moro F, Selvaggi L, Sagnella F, Morciano A, Martinez D, Gangale MF, Ciardulli A, Palla C, Uras ML, De Feo E, Boccia S, Tropea A, Lanzone A, Apa R. Could antispasmodic drug reduce pain during Sonosalpingohysterography (SSHG) in infertile patients? A randomized double-blinded clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(3):260–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tur-Kaspa I. Fear no pain: uterine cavity and tubal patency assessment tests should be pain free. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(3):247–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Spieldoch RL, Winter TC, Schouweiler C, Ansay S, Evans MD, Lindheim SR. Optimal catheter placement during sonohysterography: a randomized controlled trial comparing cervical to uterine placement. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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(6):761–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(4):371–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. The American Fertility Society classification 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 

  42. Tur-Kaspa I, Segal S, Zohav E. The ART of imaging: three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound and ART. In: Revelli A, Tur-Kaspa I, Holte JG, Massobrio M, editors. Biotechnology of human reproduction. New York: The Parthenon Publishing Group; 2003. p. 363–73.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mora-Guanche P, Sparacino L, García-Guzman R, Bennett RA, Hernández J, Palumbo A. Three-dimensional sonohysterography (SHG) has improved diagnostic accuracy for intrauterine pathology compared to two-dimensional SHG: a prospective pilot study in infertility patients. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(Suppl):S119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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(1):90–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Katsetos C, Radhakrishnan S, Koumousidis A, Kontoyannis M, Sanoulis V, Spaliaras D, et al. Comparison of transvaginal 3D sonohysterography with outpatient hysteroscopy in the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2013;40(1):74–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Adel M, Kandil M, Abo-Elnasr M, Sanad Z, Farag H. Three-dimensional sonohysterography may replace hysteroscopy for women with perimenopausal bleeding. Climacteric. 2013. doi:10.3109/13697137.2013.801014.

  47. Hartman MR, Hartman JD, Oprea C, Hartman BD, Hartman A. 3D ultrasound vs 3D sonohysterography in the diagnosis of uterine anomalies: a prospective blinded study of 600 consecutive infertility patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(Suppl):S20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Opolskiene G, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Two- and three-dimensional saline contrast sonohysterography: interobserver agreement, agreement with hysteroscopy and diagnosis of endometrial malignancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(5):574–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Exalto N, Stappers C, van Raamsdonk LA, Emanuel MH. Gel instillation sonohysterography: first experience with a new technique. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(1):152–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Marasinghe JP, Senanayake HM. Gel instillation sonohysterography: first experience with a new technique. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(2):536–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Van den Bosch T, Betsas G, Van Schoubroeck D, Daemen A, Vandenbroucke V, Cornelis A, De Moor B, Deprest J, Timmerman D. Gel infusion sonography in the evaluation of the uterine cavity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(6):711–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann HA, van der Slikke JW, Emanuel MH, Huirne JA. Gel instillation sonohysterography (GIS) and saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH): comparison of two diagnostic techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(4):486–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(1):93–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Van Den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D, Luts J, Bignardi T, Condous G, Epstein E, Leone FP, Testa AC, Valentin L, Van Huffel S, Bourne T, Timmerman D. Effect of gel-instillation sonography on Doppler ultrasound findings in endometrial polyps. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(3):355–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D, Daemen A, Domali E, Vandenbroucke V, De Moor B, Deprest J, Timmerman D. Lidocaine does not reduce pain perception during gel instillation sonography or subsequent office hysteroscopy: results of a randomized trial. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;71(4):236–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Golan A, Tur-Kaspa I. The management of the infertile patient with proximal tubal occlusion. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:1833–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Tur-Kaspa I, Seidman DS, Soriano D, Greenberg I, Dor J, Bider D. Hysterosalpingography with a balloon catheter versus a metal cannula: a prospective, randomized, blinded comparative study. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(1):75–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tur-Kaspa I, Moscovici O, Meltzer S, Peled R, Rabinson J, Segal S. Transcervical tubal catheterization (TTC) is the treatment of choice for infertile women with proximal tubal obstruction – an experience with 1010 fallopian tubes. Fertil Steril. 2002;78 Suppl 1:S90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ricci G, Guastalla P, Ammar L, Cervi G, Guarnieri S, Sartore A. Balloon catheter vs. cervical vacuum cup for hysterosalpingography: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(6):1458–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Anserini P, Delfino F, Ferraiolo A, Remorgida V, Menoni S, De Caro G. Strategies to minimize discomfort during diagnostic hysterosalpingography with disposable balloon catheters: a randomized placebo-controlled study with oral nonsteroidal premedication. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):844–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Human Reproduction (IHR), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Chicago, 409 W. Huron St., Chicago, IL, 60654, USA

    Ilan Tur-Kaspa MD

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, 601 Colley Avenue, Norfolk, VA, 23507, USA

    Laurel A. Stadtmauer MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Ilan Tur-Kaspa MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laurel A. Stadtmauer MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilan Tur-Kaspa MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

    Laurel Stadtmauer

  2. Institute for Human Reproduction, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Ilan Tur-Kaspa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tur-Kaspa, I., Stadtmauer, L.A. (2014). Sonohysterography in Reproductive Medicine. In: Stadtmauer, L., Tur-Kaspa, I. (eds) Ultrasound Imaging in Reproductive Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9182-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9182-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-9181-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-9182-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation