Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
Benjaminov O, Atri M. Sonography of the abnormal fallopian tube. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(3):737–42.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vardhana PA, Silberzweig JE, Guarnaccia M, et al. Hysterosalpingography with selective salpingography. J Reprod Med. 2009;54(3):126–32.
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.
Chalazonitis A, Tzovara I, Laspas F, et al. Hysterosalpingography: technique and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2009;38(5):199–205.
Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: experience with over 1000 consecutive patients. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(1):1–14.
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.
Simpson Jr WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. Radiographics. 2006;26(2):419–31.
Sam JW, Jacobs JE, Birnbaum BA. Spectrum of CT findings in acute pyogenic pelvic inflammatory disease. Radiographics. 2002;22(6):1327–34.
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.
Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Mezzetti Jr TP. Endometriosis: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2001;21(1):193–216.
Karasick S, Goldfarb AF. Peritubal adhesions in infertile women: diagnosis with hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;152(4):777–9.
Lee A, Ying YK, Novy MJ. Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingography and tubal ostial polyps in infertility patients. J Reprod Med. 1997;42(6):337–41.
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.
Letterie GS, Haggerty MF, Fellows DW. Sensitivity of hysterosalpingography after tubal surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1992;251(4):175–80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carrascosa, P., Capuñay, C., Sueldo, C.E., Baronio, J.M. (2014). Tubal Pathology. In: CT Virtual Hysterosalpingography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07560-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07560-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07559-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07560-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)