Hysteroscopy pp 211-221 | Cite as

Outpatient Hysteroscopy in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

  • Giuseppe Trojano
  • Antonio Malvasi
  • Vita Caroli Casavola
  • Enrico Marinelli
  • Andrea Tinelli
  • Leonardo Resta
  • Ettore Cicinelli


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.


Office hysteroscopy Recurrent pregnancy loss Müllerian anomalies Myoma Chronic endometritis Endometrial polyps Asherman’s syndrome Synechiae 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crane JP, Wahl N. The role of maternal diabetes in repetitive spontaneous abortion. Fertil Steril. 1981;36:477–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coulam CB, Stern JJ. Endocrine factors associated with recurrent spontaneous abortion. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1994;37:730–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carrington B, Sacks G, Regant L. Recurrent miscarriage pathophysiology and outcome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:591–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stephenson MD. Management of recurrent early pregnancy loss. J Reprod Med. 2006;51(4):303–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Acién P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(1):122–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raga F, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2277–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 16.
    Venetis CA, Grimbizis GF. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:665–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:22–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coccia ME, Scarselli G. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for operative hysteroscopy. A prospective study. J Reprod Med. 2000;45(5):413–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Litta P, Cosmi E. Resectoscope or Versapoint for hysteroscopic metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;101:39–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 29.
    Cararach M, Labastida R. Hysteroscopic incision of the septate uterus: scissors versus resectoscope. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(1):87–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hayden A, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cook JD, Walker CL. Treatment strategies for uterine leiomyoma: the role of hormonal modulation. Semin Reprod Med. 2004;22:105–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bulun SE. Uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1344–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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
  36. 36.
    Narayan R, Rajat GK. Treatment of submucous fibroids an outcome of assisted conception. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1994;1:307–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pakrashi T. New hysteroscopic techniques for submucosal uterine fibroids. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(4):308–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Polisseni F, Camargos AF. Detection of chronic endometritis by diagnostic hysteroscopy in asymptomatic infertile patients. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2003;55:205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cicinelli E, Resta L, Nicoletti R, et al. Detection of chronic endometritis at fluid hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12:514–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Taylor E, Gomel V. The uterus and fertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(1):1–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hinckley MD, Milki AA. 1000 office-based hysteroscopies prior to in vitro fertilization: feasibility and findings. JSLS. 2004;8:103–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Muzii L, Benedetti Panici P. Resectoscopic versus bipolar electrode excision of endometrial polyps: a randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(4):909–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lieng L, Qvigstad E. Treatment of endometrial polyps: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2010;89(8):992–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Varasteh NN, Keltz MD. Pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic polypectomy and myomectomy in infertile women. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:168–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Spiewankiewicz B, Swiderska K. The effectiveness of hysteroscopic polypectomy in cases of female infertility. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2003;30:23–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Isikoglu M, Ozgur K. Endometrial polyps smaller than 1.5 cm do not affect ICSI outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gilman AR, Fluker MR. Intrauterine adhesions following miscarriage: look and learn. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;38(5):453–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tsui KH. Comprehensive treatment for infertile women with severe Asherman syndrome. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53(3):372–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bougie O, Singh SS. Treatment of Asherman's syndrome in an outpatient hysteroscopy setting. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(3):446–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Carp HJ, Mashiach S. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. Fertil Steril. 1992;58(2):419–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe Trojano
    • 1
  • Antonio Malvasi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Vita Caroli Casavola
    • 1
  • Enrico Marinelli
    • 4
  • Andrea Tinelli
    • 5
    • 6
  • Leonardo Resta
    • 7
  • Ettore Cicinelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2University of BariBariItaly
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Santa Maria HospitalGVM Care & ResearchBariItaly
  3. 3.Department of Applied Mathematics, Moscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyState UniversityMoscowRussian Federation
  4. 4.Department of Anatomical Hystological Forensic and Orthopaedic SciencesSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  5. 5.Division of Experimental Endoscopic Surgery, Imaging, Technology and Minimally Invasive Therapy, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyVito Fazzi HospitalLecceItaly
  6. 6.The International Translational Medicine and Biomodelling Research Group, Department of Applied MathematicsMoscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State University)MoscowRussia
  7. 7.Department of Anatomic PathologyUniversity of BariBariItaly

Personalised recommendations