Pathology of the Uterine Cavity

  • Patricia Carrascosa
  • Carlos Capuñay
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
  • Juan Mariano Baronio


Causes of infertility by uterine factors have a prevalence of a 10 %.

The uterus participates in key processes of the reproductive system that involve the transport of spermatozoids, embryo implantation and fetal nutrition. It is for this reason that congenital uterine anomalies (unicornuate, bicornuate, and septum uterus, etc.) and acquired pathologies (endometrial polyps, intrauterine synechiae and fibroids) can negatively influence fertility.


Endometrial Carcinoma Uterine Cavity Multiplanar Reconstruction Uterine Wall Intrauterine Device 
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.
    Hunt JE, Wallach EE. Uterine factors in infertility an overview. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1974;17:44–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donnez J, Jadoul P. What are the implications of myomas on fertility? A need for a debate? Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1424–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karasick S, Goldfarb AF. Peritubal adhesions in infertile women: diagnosis with hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;152(4):777–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, et al. Adenomyosis in endometriosis – prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2309–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matalliotakis IM, Katsikis IK, Panidis DK. Adenomyosis: what is the impact on fertility? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:261–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin PC, Bhatnagar KP, Nettleton GS, et al. Female genital anomalies affecting reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:899–915.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendoza Aguilar M, Herrera Flores I, Viramontes Trejo G, et al. Incidencia de patología de útero y anexos diagnosticada por histerosalpingografía en el Hospital General de México. An Radiol Méx. 2009;3:201–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ott DJ, Fayez JA. Tubal and adnexal abnormalities. In: Ott DJ, Fayez JA, Zagoria RJ, editors. Hysterosalpingography: a text and atlas. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1998. p. 90–3.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simpson Jr WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. Radiographics. 2006;26(2):419–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vardhana PA, Silberzweig JE, Guarnaccia M, et al. Hysterosalpingography with selective salpingography. J Reprod Med. 2009;54(3):126–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sankpal RS, Confino E, Matzel A, et al. Investigation of the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes using three-dimensional saline sonohysterosalpingography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;73(2):125–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; American College of Radiology; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(1):165–72.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bhaduri M, Khalifa M, Tomlinson G, et al. Sonohysterography: the utility of diagnostic criteria sets. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(1):W83–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winter L, Glücker T, Steimann S, et al. Feasibility of dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography for the diagnostic work-up of infertile women. Acta Radiol. 2010;51(6):693–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kigawa J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign from malignant uterine endometrial cavity lesions: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(2):384–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dexeus S, Labastida R, Marqués L. Hysteroscopy in daily gynaecologic practice. Acta Eur Fertil. 1986;17:423–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee A, Ying YK, Novy MJ. Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingography and tubal ostial polyps in infertility patients. J Reprod Med. 1997;42(6):337–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chalazonitis A, Tzovara I, Laspas F, et al. Hysterosalpingography: technique and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2009;38(5):199–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roma A, Ubeda B, Nin Garaizabal P. Hysterosalpingography: how, when, what for? Radiologia. 2007;49(1):5–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elsayes KM, Pandya A, Platt JF, et al. Technique and diagnostic utility of saline infusion sonohysterography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(1):5–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tello R, Tempany CM, Chai J, et al. MR hysterography using axial long TR imaging with threedimensional projections of the uterus. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1997;21(2):117–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Unterweger M, De Geyter C, Fröhlich JM, et al. Three-dimensional dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography; a new, low invasive, radiation-free and less painful radiological approach to female infertility. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3138–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Florio P, Puzzutiello R, Filippeschi M, et al. Lowdose spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine with intrathecal fentanyl for operative hysteroscopy: a case series study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(1):107–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Evangelista A, Oliveira MA, Crispi CP, et al. Diagnostic hysteroscopy using liquid distention medium: comparison of pain with warmed saline solution vs room-temperature saline solution. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(1):104–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heinonen PK. Intrauterine adhesions-Asherman’s syndrome. Duodecim. 2010;126(21):2486–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rathat G, Do Trinh P, Mercier G, et al. Synechia after uterine compression sutures. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):405–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deans R, Abbott J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(5):555–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berman JM. Intrauterine adhesions. Semin Reprod Med. 2008;26(4):349–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ceccaldi PF, Nguyen T, Mandelbrot L. Unusual synechia at hysterosalpingography: intrauterine fallopian tube after surgical abortion. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(6):2078–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yasmin H, Nasir A, Noorani KJ. Hystroscopic management of Ashermans syndrome. J Pak Med Assoc. 2007;57(11):553–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Carrascosa P, Baronio M, Capuñay C, et al. Multidetector computed tomography virtual hysterosalpingography in the investigation of the uterus and fallopian tubes. Eur J Radiol. 2008;67:531–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Mariano B, et al. Virtual hysteroscopy by multidetector computed tomography. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33:381–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Baronio M, et al. 64-Row multidetector CT virtual hysterosalpingography. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34(1):121–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Carrascosa P, Baronio JM, Borghi M, et al. Histerosalpingoscopía virtual. Una técnica novedosa y no invasiva para diagnosticar patología intrauterina. Reproduccion. 2006;21:19–26.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baronio M, Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, et al. Diagnostic performance of CT virtual hysteroscopy in 69 consecutive patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(Suppl):S77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sharma JB, Pushparaj M, Roy KK, et al. Hyster osalpingographic findings in infertile women with genital tuberculosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;101(2):150–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30:643–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: experience with over 1000 consecutive patients. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thomson AJ, Abbott JA, Deans R, et al. The management of intrauterine synechiae. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21(4):335–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for management of intrauterine synechiae. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(1):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Elbahraoui H, Elmazghi A, Bouziane H, et al. Postmenopausal tuberculous endometritis simulating endometrial cancer: report of a case. Pan Afr Med J. 2012;11:7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Iovenitti P, Ruggeri G, Tatangelo R, et al. Endometrial tuberculosis: a clinical case. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(2):186–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Larosa M, Facchini F, Pozzoli G, et al. Endometriosis: aetiopathogenetic basis. Urologia. 2010;77 Suppl 17:1–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Roma Dalfó A, Ubeda B, Ubeda A, et al. Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography in the detection of intrauterine abnormalities: a comparison with hysteroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(5):1405–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    López Navarrete JA, Herrera Otero JM, Quiroga Feuchter G, et al. Comparison between hysterosonography and hysterosalpinography in the study of endometrial abnormalities in infertility patients. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2003;71:277–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sindi O, Saleh A, Rouzi AA. Diagnosis of simple endometrial hyperplasia in a woman with polycystic ovary syndrome with use of hysterosalpingography. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(5):1069–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Golan A, Cohen-Sahar B, Keidar R, et al. Endometrial polyps: symptomatology, menopausal status and malignancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010;70(2):107–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tabrizi AD, Vahedi A, Esmaily HA. Malignant endometrial polyps: report of two cases and review of literature with emphasize on recent advances. J Res Med Sci. 2011;16(4):574–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Costa-Paiva L, Godoy Jr CE, Antunes Jr A, et al. Risk of malignancy in endometrial polyps in premenopausal and postmenopausal women according to clinicopathologic characteristics. Menopause. 2011;18(12):1278–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Growdon WB. Age and postmenopausal bleeding risk factors for malignant changes in endometrial polyps. Menopause. 2011;18(12):1267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, et al. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathological findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):131–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Preutthipan S, Linasmita V. A prospective comparative study between hysterosalpingography and hysteroscopy in the detection of intrauterine pathology in patients with infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2003;29:33–7.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pérez-Medina T, Bajo-Arenas J, Salazar F, et al. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing inrauterine inseination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1632–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bohlman ME, Ensor RE, Sanders RC. Sonographic findings in adenomyosis of the uterus. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;148:756–66.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1999;19:S147–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Juhasz-Böss I, Haggag H, Baum S, et al. Laparoscopic and laparotomic approaches for endometrial cancer treatment: a comprehensive review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(1):167–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Karimi-Zarchi M, Mousavi AS, Behtash N, et al. Conservative management of young women with endometrial carcinoma or complex atypical hyperplasia: report of three cases and literature review. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2011;32(6):695–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ikeda S, Kato T. A case of pelvic actinomycosis unrelated to an intrauterine device. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012;42(3):237–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Berisavac M, Sparić R, Argirović R, et al. Application of a hormonal intrauterine device causing uterine perforation: a case report. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2011;139(11–12):815–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Carrascosa
    • 1
  • Carlos Capuñay
    • 1
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
    • 2
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
    • 3
  1. 1.Diagnóstico MaipúBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.CEGYRBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations