Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outpatient Hysteroscopy in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Hysteroscopy

Abstract

Recurrent pregnancy loss is defined as the loss of three or more consecutive pregnancies.

Common causes of recurrent pregnancy loss are endometritis, genetic abnormalities, congenital or acquired uterine malformation, endocrine dysfunction, thrombophilic disorders, autoimmune diseases, incompetent cervix, luteal phase defect, certain infections, and sperm DNA abnormalities.

The workup of patients with RPL includes congenital malformation (most commonly bicornuate, didelphic, septate, and unicornuate uteri) and acquired defects (fibroids, adenomas, adhesions, and polyps). Office hysteroscopy plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of uterine pathologies associated with RPL. This chapter reviews the structural uterine and endometrial causes of pregnancy loss and the role of office hystyeroscopy, describing hysteroscopic and hystological findings; it also considers legal aspects of complication occurring during outpatient hysteroscopic procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Classic and cutting-edge strategies for the management of early pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2014;41:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Crane JP, Wahl N. The role of maternal diabetes in repetitive spontaneous abortion. Fertil Steril. 1981;36:477–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coulam CB, Stern JJ. Endocrine factors associated with recurrent spontaneous abortion. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1994;37:730–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carrington B, Sacks G, Regant L. Recurrent miscarriage pathophysiology and outcome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:591–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kazerooni T, Asadi N, Jadid L, et al. Evaluation of sperm’s chromatin quality with Acridine orange test, chromomycin A3 and aniline blue staining in couples with unexplained recurrent abortion. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:591–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of recurrent miscarriage. RCOG ‘Greentop’ Guideline. 2001;17.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jaslow CR, Carney JL, Kutteh WH. Diagnostic factors identified in 1020 women with two verses three or more recurrent pregnancy losses. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:1234–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stephenson MD. Management of recurrent early pregnancy loss. J Reprod Med. 2006;51(4):303–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cooper NA, Smith P, Khan KS, Clark TJ. A systematic review of the effect of the distension medium on pain during outpatient hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):264–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grigoris F, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2032–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. American Fertility Society. The AFS 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 

  13. Acién P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(1):122–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Raga F, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2277–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Elmandooh M. Validity of hysteroscopy in detection of uterine cavity abnormalities in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. J Gynecol Res Obstet. 2016;2(1):26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Venetis CA, Grimbizis GF. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:665–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:22–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama. Uterine septum: a guideline Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):530–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ludwin A, Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Mullerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:569–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bohlmann MK, Strowitzki T. Hysteroscopic findings in women with two and with more than two first-trimester miscarriages are not significantly different. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:230–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ludwin A, Basta A. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, hysterosalpingography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in diagnosis of arcuate, septate and bicornuate uterus. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2011;37:178–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ludwin A, Knafel A. Two- and threedimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:90–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mohammadi S, Ahmadi F. Accuracy of 3-dimensional sonography for diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(6):923–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Coccia ME, Scarselli G. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for operative hysteroscopy. A prospective study. J Reprod Med. 2000;45(5):413–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fedele L, Tozzi L. Residual uterine septum of less than 1 cm after hysteroscopic metroplasty does not impair reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(4):727–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Colacurci N, De Placido G. Small-diameter hysteroscopy with Versapoint versus resectoscopy with a unipolar knife for the treatment of septate uterus: a prospective randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:622–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Litta P, Cosmi E. Resectoscope or Versapoint for hysteroscopic metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;101:39–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bradley L, Falcone T. Hysteroscopy for evaluating and treating recurrent pregnancy loss. In: Bradley L, Falcone T, editors. Hysteroscopy: office evaluation and management of the uterine cavity. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008. p. 156–69.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cararach M, Labastida R. Hysteroscopic incision of the septate uterus: scissors versus resectoscope. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(1):87–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tomazevic T, Bokal E. Septate, subseptate and arcuate uterus decrease pregnancy and live birth rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(5):700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hayden A, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sozen I, Arici A. Interactions of cytokines, growth factors, and the extracellular matrix in the cellular biology of uterine leiomyomata. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cook JD, Walker CL. Treatment strategies for uterine leiomyoma: the role of hormonal modulation. Semin Reprod Med. 2004;22:105–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bulun SE. Uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1344–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Donnez J, Jadoul P. What are the implications of myomas on fertility? A need for a debate? Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1424–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Narayan R, Rajat GK. Treatment of submucous fibroids an outcome of assisted conception. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1994;1:307–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Farhi J, Ashkenazi J, Feldberg D, Dicker D, Orvieto R, Ben RZ. The effects of uterine leiomyomata on in-vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:2576–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bernard G, Darai E, Poncelet C, Benifla JL, Madelenat P. Fertility after hysteroscopic myomectomy: effect of intramural myomas associated. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000;88:85–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fernandez H, Sefrioui O, Virelizier C, Gervaise A, Gomel V, Frydman R. Hysteroscopic resection of submucosal myomas in patients with infertility. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1489–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Munro MG, Critchley HO, Broder MS, Fraser IS, for the FIGO Working Group on Menstrual Disorders. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2011;113:3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pakrashi T. New hysteroscopic techniques for submucosal uterine fibroids. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(4):308–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zolghadri J, Zohreh T. The value of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of chronic endometritis in patients with unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;155:217–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Polisseni F, Camargos AF. Detection of chronic endometritis by diagnostic hysteroscopy in asymptomatic infertile patients. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2003;55:205–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Smith M, Bocklage T. Chronic endometritis: a combined histopathologic and clinical review of cases from 2002 to 2007. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2010;29:44–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cicinelli E, Resta L, Nicoletti R, et al. Detection of chronic endometritis at fluid hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12:514–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cicinelli E, Indraccolo U, et al. Chronic endometritis due to common bacteria is prevalent in women with recurrent miscarriage as confirmed by improved pregnancy outcome after antibiotic treatment. Reprod Sci. 2014;21:640–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Loiacono RM, Trojano G, Del Gaudio N, Kardhashi A, Deliso MA, Falco G, Sforza R, Laera AF, Galise I, Trojano V. Hysteroscopy as a valid tool for endometrial pathology in patients with postmenopausal bleeding or asymptomatic patients with a thickened endometrium: hysteroscopic and histological results. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2015;79(3):210–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hinckley MD, Milki AA. 1000 office-based hysteroscopies prior to in vitro fertilization: feasibility and findings. JSLS. 2004;8:103–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Richlin S, Parthasarathy S. Glycodelin levels in uterine flushings and in plasma of patients with leiomyomas and polyps: implications and implantation. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2742–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rosa DS, Ferriani RA. Routine office hysteroscopy in the investigation of infertile couples before assisted reproduction. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:501–6.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gebauer G, Lang N. Role of hysteroscopy in detection and extraction of endometrial polyps: results of a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:59–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Muzii L, Benedetti Panici P. Resectoscopic versus bipolar electrode excision of endometrial polyps: a randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(4):909–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lieng L, Qvigstad E. Treatment of endometrial polyps: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2010;89(8):992–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Perez-Medina AP. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1632–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Varasteh NN, Keltz MD. Pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic polypectomy and myomectomy in infertile women. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:168–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Spiewankiewicz B, Swiderska K. The effectiveness of hysteroscopic polypectomy in cases of female infertility. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2003;30:23–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Lass A, Brinsden P. The effect of endometrial polyps on outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16:410–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Isikoglu M, Ozgur K. Endometrial polyps smaller than 1.5 cm do not affect ICSI outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:199–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Gilman AR, Fluker MR. Intrauterine adhesions following miscarriage: look and learn. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;38(5):453–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lemmers M, Mol BW. Dilatation and curettage increases the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):34–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tchounzou R, Mbu RE. Treatment of uterine synechiae without hysteroscopy in a semiurban setting in Cameroon. Med Sante Trop. 2014;24(3):263–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Saravelos SH, Li TC. Ultrasound guided treatment of intrauterine adhesions in the outpatient setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; doi:10.1002/uog.16218.

  64. Song D, Liu Y. Management of false passage created during hysteroscopic adhesiolysis for Asherman’s syndrome. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;36(1):87–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Tsui KH. Comprehensive treatment for infertile women with severe Asherman syndrome. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53(3):372–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bougie O, Singh SS. Treatment of Asherman's syndrome in an outpatient hysteroscopy setting. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(3):446–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Cai H, He Y. Oxidized, regenerated cellulose adhesion barrier plus intrauterine device prevents recurrence after adhesiolysis for moderate to severe intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(1):80–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Lin X, Zhang S. Randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy of intrauterine balloon and intrauterine contraceptive device in the prevention of adhesion reformation after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(1):235–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Lin X, Zhang SA. Comparison of intrauterine balloon, intrauterine contraceptive device and hyaluronic acid gel in the prevention of adhesion reformation following hysteroscopic surgery for Asherman syndrome: a cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(2):512–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Carp HJ, Mashiach S. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. Fertil Steril. 1992;58(2):419–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Giuseppe Trojano M.D, Ph.D., Vita Caroli Casavola M.D. & Ettore Cicinelli M.D.

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Santa Maria Hospital, GVM Care & Research, Bari, Italy

    Antonio Malvasi M.D.

  3. Department of Applied Mathematics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, State University, Moscow, Russian Federation

    Antonio Malvasi M.D.

  4. Department of Anatomical Hystological Forensic and Orthopaedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Enrico Marinelli M.D.

  5. Division of Experimental Endoscopic Surgery, Imaging, Technology and Minimally Invasive Therapy, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vito Fazzi Hospital, Lecce, Italy

    Andrea Tinelli M.D., Ph.D.

  6. The International Translational Medicine and Biomodelling Research Group, Department of Applied Mathematics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State University), Moscow, Russia

    Andrea Tinelli M.D., Ph.D.

  7. Department of Anatomic Pathology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Leonardo Resta M.D.

Authors
  1. Giuseppe Trojano M.D, Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Malvasi M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vita Caroli Casavola M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Enrico Marinelli M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Tinelli M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Leonardo Resta M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ettore Cicinelli M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe Trojano M.D, Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale Vito Fazzi, Lecce, Italy

    Andrea Tinelli

  2. Hysteroscopy Unit, Gutenberg Institute, Malaga, Spain

    Luis Alonso Pacheco

  3. Hysteroscopy Unit, Hospital Del Mar, Barcelona, Spain

    Sergio Haimovich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Trojano, G. et al. (2018). Outpatient Hysteroscopy in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss. In: Tinelli, A., Alonso Pacheco, L., Haimovich, S. (eds) Hysteroscopy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57559-9_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57559-9_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57558-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57559-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation