Tubal Pathology

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


Tubal factor is one of leading causes associated to infertility in women. There exist diverse pathological conditions that affect the Fallopian tubes and, henceforth, interfere with normal transport of the ovule through them. The most frequent process is pelvic inflammatory disease, which represents a wide spectrum that includes salpingitis, piosalpinx and the tube-ovary abscess. Other frequent entities, and some more rare, can compromise the Fallopian tubes. The differential diagnosis with other pelvic entities is of the utmost importance for treating the patients. There exist diverse diagnostic methods that are utilized in the study of uterine tubes. Hysterosalpingography is the modality which has traditionally been used to investigate the tuboperitoneal factor. Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) present limitations to the direct visualization of tubes. In the last years enhancements in these methods have been developed, like the sono-hysterosalpingography and the MR-hysterosalpingography, but they still have not reached an adequate resolution for the diagnosis of the tubal pathology. Laparoscopy is the method of reference and is reserved for the confirmation of the radiologic findings and for therapeutic procedures.


Uterine Tube Ectopic Pregnancy Inflammatory Pelvic Disease Uterine Cavity Pelvic Cavity 
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.
    Carrascosa PM, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30(3):643–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swart P, Mol BW, van der Veen F, et al. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(3):486–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benjaminov O, Atri M. Sonography of the abnormal fallopian tube. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(3):737–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hamed HO, Shahin AY, Elsamman AM. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography versus radiographic hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of tubal patency. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(3):215–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Lundberg S, Wramsby H, Bremmer S, et al. Radionuclide hysterosalpingography is not predictive in the diagnosis of infertility. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(2):216–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Sadowski EA, Ochsner JE, Riherd JM, et al. MR hysterosalpingography with an angiographic time-resolved 3D pulse sequence: assessment of tubal patency. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(5):1381–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vardhana PA, Silberzweig JE, Guarnaccia M, et al. Hysterosalpingography with selective salpingography. J Reprod Med. 2009;54(3):126–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Papaioannou S, Bourdrez P, Varma R, et al. Tubal evaluation in the investigation of subfertility: a structured comparison of tests. BJOG. 2004;111(12):1313–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chalazonitis A, Tzovara I, Laspas F, et al. Hysterosalpingography: technique and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2009;38(5):199–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Winfield AC, Pittaway D, Maxson W, et al. Apparent cornual occlusion in hysterosalpingography: reversal by glucagon. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982;139(3):525–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simpson Jr WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. Radiographics. 2006;26(2):419–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sam JW, Jacobs JE, Birnbaum BA. Spectrum of CT findings in acute pyogenic pelvic inflammatory disease. Radiographics. 2002;22(6):1327–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Mezzetti Jr TP. Endometriosis: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2001;21(1):193–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karasick S, Goldfarb AF. Peritubal adhesions in infertile women: diagnosis with hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;152(4):777–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Kawakami S, Togashi K, Kimura I, et al. Primary malignant tumor of the fallopian tube: appearance at CT and MR imaging. Radiology. 1993;186(2):503–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Letterie GS, Haggerty MF, Fellows DW. Sensitivity of hysterosalpingography after tubal surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1992;251(4):175–80.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