Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sonohysterography (SHG) in Reproductive Medicine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ultrasound Imaging in Reproductive Medicine

Abstract

Sonohysterography (SHG) is a simple ultrasound (US) imaging technique to visualize the 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 US visualization. Saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS), hysterosonography (HSN), and gel instillation sonography (GIS, where gel is used instead of saline) are synonym names for SHG. SHG has been demonstrated to be a safe, cost-effective, and minimally invasive method for the evaluation of congenital and acquired uterine abnormalities. Randomized control trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses have all demonstrated that SHG has comparable sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in diagnosing intrauterine abnormalities to hysteroscopy. Therefore, SHG is comparable to hysteroscopy as gold standard for intrauterine evaluation. Published guidelines by ASRM, AIUM, and ACOG on SHG are easy to implement in routine reproductive medicine and/or gynecological practice. Gynecologists performing SHG should undergo education and training, be skilled in the transcervical placement of catheters, and demonstrate competence in interpreting SHG. By using thin flexible catheters, placing them inside the cervix and injecting the warm saline slowly, this procedure can be pain-free. SHG can be also used to assess tubal patency. SHG has been established as the initial test for screening and evaluation of the uterine cavity for the diagnosis of infertility; recurrent pregnancy loss, before ART; and the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

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 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 159.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG technology assessment no. 8: Sonohysterography. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;119(6):1325 (update of ACOG technology assessment in obstetrics and gynecology no. 5: sonohysterography). Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1467–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility; American Society of Reproductive Medicine. AIUM practice guideline for ultrasonography in reproductive medicine. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(1):128–37.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM); American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG); American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOOG); American Society for Reproductive Medicine–Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (ASRM-SREI);Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN). AIUM practice guideline for the performance of a focused reproductive endocrinology and infertility scan. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(11):1865–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM); American College of Radiology (ACR); American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG); Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR); Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU). AIUM practice guideline for the performance of ultrasound of the female pelvis. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(6):1122–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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  Google Scholar 

  7. 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  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bittencourt CA, Dos Santos Simões R, Bernardo WM, Fuchs LFP, Soares Júnior JM, Pastore AR, Baracat EC. Accuracy of saline contrast sonohysterography in detection of endometrial polyps and submucosal leiomyomas in women of reproductive age with abnormal uterine bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(1):32–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bittencourt CA, Dos Santos Simões R, Bernardo WM, Fuchs LFP, Soares Júnior JM, Pastore AR, et al. Accuracy of saline contrast sonohysterography in detection of endometrial polyps and submucosal leiomyomas in women of reproductive age with abnormal uterine bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(1):32–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins--Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin. Antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. No. 104, May 2009. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1180–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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  Google Scholar 

  17. Moro F, Selvaggi L, Sagnella F, Morciano A, Martinez D, Gangale MF, et al. 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  Google Scholar 

  18. Yung SS, Lai SF, Lam MT, Lee VC, Li RH, Ho PC, et al. Randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of topical lidocaine gel and intrauterine lidocaine infusion for pain relief during saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(1):17–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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  Google Scholar 

  20. 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  Google Scholar 

  21. Dreisler E, Stampe Sørensen S. Müllerian duct anomalies diagnosed by saline contrast sonohysterography: prevalence in a general population. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(2):525–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Pityński K, Banas T, Jach R. Role of morphologic characteristics of the uterine septum in the prediction and prevention of abnormal healing outcomes after hysteroscopic metroplasty. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1420–31. [Epub ahead of print].

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Banas T, Knafel A, Miedzyblocki M, Basta A. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, hysterosalpingography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in diagnosis of arcuate, septate and bicornuate uterus. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2011;37(3):178–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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  Google Scholar 

  25. 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  Google Scholar 

  26. The American Fertility Society. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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  Google Scholar 

  32. Ludwin A, Martins WP, Ludwin I. Uterine niche by three-dimensional sonohysterography and volumetric quantification: techniques and scoring classification system. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(1):139–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee SC, Kaunitz AM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Rhatigan RM. The oncogenic potential of endometrial polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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  Google Scholar 

  35. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub2.

  36. 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 

  37. 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 

  38. 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  Google Scholar 

  39. Nieuwenhuis LL, Hermans FJ, Bij de Vaate AJM, Leeflang MM, Brölmann HA, Hehenkamp WJ, et al. Three-dimensional saline infusion sonography compared to two-dimensional saline infusion sonography for the diagnosis of focal intracavitary lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(5):CD011126.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Inoue T, Kitajima M, Taniguchi K, Masuzaki H. Three-dimensional saline-infusion sonohysterography is useful for the identification of endometrial polyp. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016;42(7):855–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Arya S, Kupesic Plavsic S. Preimplantation 3D ultrasound: current uses and challenges. J Perinat Med. 2017;45(6):745–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

  43. Adel M, Kandil M, Abo-Elnasr M, Sanad Z, Farag H. Three-dimensional sonohysterography may replace hysteroscopy for women with perimenopausal bleeding. Climacteric. 2014;17(1):55–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. El-Sherbiny W, El-Mazny A, Abou-Salem N, Mostafa WS. The diagnostic accuracy of two- vs three-dimensional sonohysterography for evaluation of the uterine cavity in the reproductive age. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(1):127–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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 

  46. 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  Google Scholar 

  47. 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  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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 

  51. 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 

  52. Van Den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D, Luts J, Bignardi T, Condous G, Epstein E, et al. Effect of gel-instillation sonography on Doppler ultrasound findings in endometrial polyps. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(3):355–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 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  Google Scholar 

  56. 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 

  57. 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  Google Scholar 

  58. 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  Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 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  Google Scholar 

  64. 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  Google Scholar 

  65. Ayida G, Chamberlain P, Barlow D, Kennedy S. 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  Google Scholar 

  66. Loverro G, Nappi L, Vicino M, Carriero C, Vimercati A, Selvaggi L. 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  Google Scholar 

  67. 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  Google Scholar 

  68. 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 Investig. 2005;59:184–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 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  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Seshadri S, El-Toukhy T, Douiri A, Jayaprakasan K, Khalaf Y. Diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography in the evaluation of uterine cavity abnormalities prior to assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(2):262–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Armstrong SC, Showell M, Stewart EA, Rebar RW, Vanderpoel S, Farquhar CM. Baseline anatomical assessment of the uterus and ovaries in infertile women: a systematic review of the evidence on which assessment methods are the safest and most effective in terms of improving fertility outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(5):533–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 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  Google Scholar 

  74. 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  Google Scholar 

  75. Van Voorhis BJ, Thomas M, Surrey ES, Sparks A. What do consistently high-performing in vitro fertilization programs in the U.S. do? Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1346–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 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  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Human Reproduction, Chicago, IL, USA

    Ilan Tur-Kaspa & David P. Cohen

  2. Sant’Anna Hospital, University of Turin, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Turin, Italy

    Alberto Revelli

  3. The Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Laurel A. Stadtmauer

Authors
  1. Ilan Tur-Kaspa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alberto Revelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laurel A. Stadtmauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David P. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilan Tur-Kaspa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Laurel A. Stadtmauer

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

    Ilan Tur-Kaspa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tur-Kaspa, I., Revelli, A., Stadtmauer, L.A., Cohen, D.P. (2019). Sonohysterography (SHG) in Reproductive Medicine. In: Stadtmauer, L., Tur-Kaspa, I. (eds) Ultrasound Imaging in Reproductive Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16699-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16699-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16698-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16699-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation