Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reproductive Medicine for Clinical Practice pp 93–104Cite as

Future of Imaging in Human Reproduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 627 Accesses

Part of the book series: Reproductive Medicine for Clinicians ((REMECL,volume 1))

Abstract

Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (3D TVUS) has gradually evolved into the safe, widely available, and reasonably cheap imaging modality that offers numerous advantages for diagnostic workup of infertile patients. Adding coronal plane and surface rendering has improved the accuracy of ultrasound for detection of various uterine anomalies and acquired uterine abnormalities. Assessment of the fallopian tube patency with HyCoSy is considered less invasive and widely accepted alternative that avoids the disadvantages of traditionally used methods. The automatic follicle count (AFC) with SonoAVC post processing has made ovarian reserve testing faster, more accurate, and less operator dependent. It has a potential to improve ovulation induction monitoring, leading to greater oocyte retrieval and increased oocyte fertilization rates. Vascularity and pelvic organ functions are well studied with volume acquisition using 3D power Doppler US and virtual organ computer-aided analysis (VOCAL), which could assist in better assessment of the endometrial receptivity and improved timing of the embryo transfer to achieve higher implantation rates.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Homer HA, Li T-C, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kupešić S, Kurjak A, Skenderovic S, Bjelos D. Screening for uterine abnormalities by three-dimensional ultrasound improves perinatal outcome. J Perinat Med. 2002;30(1):9–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ergenoglu AM, Sahin C, Simsek D, Akdemir A, Yeniel A, Yerli H, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis in surgically proven Müllerian duct anomaly cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;197:22–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Graupera B, Pascual M, Hereter L, Browne J, Úbeda B, Rodríguez I, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(5):616–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bermejo C, Martinez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Perez Pedregosa J, Barron E, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2010;35(5):593–601. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20052665.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Kudla M, Pitynski K, Banas T, Jach R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional sonohysterography compared with office hysteroscopy and its interrater/intrarater agreement in uterine cavity assessment after hysteroscopic metroplasty. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2014;101(5):1392–1399.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.01.039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moini A, Mohammadi S, Hosseini R, Eslami B, Ahmadi F. Accuracy of 3-dimensional sonography for diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. J Ultrasound Med [Internet]. 2013;32(6):923–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23716512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hudelist G, English J, Thomas AE, Tinelli A, Singer CF, Keckstein J. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for non-invasive diagnosis of bowel endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(3):257–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hudelist G, Fritzer N, Staettner S, Tammaa A, Tinelli A, Sparic R, et al. Uterine sliding sign: a simple sonographic predictor for presence of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):692–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. de Kroon CD, de Bock GH, Dieben SW, Jansen FW. Saline contrast hysterosonography in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2003;110(10):938–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moschos E, Ashfaq R, McIntire DD, Liriano B, Twickler DM. Saline-infusion sonography endometrial sampling compared with endometrial biopsy in diagnosing endometrial pathology. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(4):881–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Moschos E, Bailey AA, Twickler DM. Comparison of saline infusion sonography (SIS) versus SIS-guided endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of endometrial pathology. J Clin Ultrasound. 2016;44(7):416–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bingol B, Gunenc Z, Gedikbasi A, Guner H, Tasdemir S, Tiras B. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Obstet Gynaecol [Internet]. 2011;31(1):54–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21280995.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Grimbizis GF, Tsolakidis D, Mikos T, Anagnostou E, Asimakopoulos E, Stamatopoulos P, et al. A prospective comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, saline infusion sonohysterography, and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of endometrial pathology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(7):2720–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jurisic A, Garalejic E, Jurisic Z, Arsic B, Rudic J, Hadzovic M. Transvaginal 3D multislice saline infusion sonohysterography [Internet]. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22:S103. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=emed10&NEWS=N&AN=70389772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brosens JJ, de Souza NM, Barker FG. Uterine junctional zone: function and disease. Lancet. 1995;346(8974):558–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brosens I, Pijnenborg R, Benagiano G. Defective myometrial spiral artery remodelling as a cause of major obstetrical syndromes in endometriosis and adenomyosis. Placenta. 2013;34(2):100–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Puente JM, Fabris A, Patel J, Patel A, Cerrillo M, Requena A, et al. Adenomyosis in infertile women: prevalence and the role of 3D ultrasound as a marker of severity of the disease. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Juang C-M, Chou P, Yen M-S, Twu N-F, Horng H-C, Hsu W-L. Adenomyosis and risk of preterm delivery. BJOG [Internet]. 2007;114(2):165–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17169011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vercellini P, Consonni D, Dridi D, Bracco B, Frattaruolo MP, Somigliana E. Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):964–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fernando S, Breheny S, Jaques AM, Halliday JL, Baker G, Healy D. Preterm birth, ovarian endometriomata, and assisted reproduction technologies. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(2):325–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stephansson O, Kieler H, Granath F, Falconer H. Endometriosis, assisted reproduction technology, and risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2009;24(9):2341–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19439428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kunz G, Herbertz M, Beil D, Huppert P, Leyendecker G. Adenomyosis as a disorder of the early and late human reproductive period. Reprod Biomed Online [Internet]. 2007;15(6):681–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18062865.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Landi S, Mereu L, Pontrelli G, Stepniewska A, Romano L, Tateo S, et al. The influence of adenomyosis in patients laparoscopically treated for deep endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):566–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Maubon A, Faury A, Kapella M, Pouquet M, Piver P. Uterine junctional zone at magnetic resonance imaging: a predictor of in vitro fertilization implantation failure. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36(3):611–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brosens I, Derwig I, Brosens J, Fusi L, Benagiano G, Pijnenborg R. The enigmatic uterine junctional zone: the missing link between reproductive disorders and major obstetrical disorders? Hum Reprod. 2010;25:569–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Albrecht L, LaMonica R, Proffer A, Zupi E, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis of adenomyosis: histologic correlation with ultrasound targeted biopsies of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(6):803–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bulletti C, De Ziegler D, Polli V, Del Ferro E, Palini S, Flamigni C. Characteristics of uterine contractility during menses in women with mild to moderate endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(6):1156–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fanchin R, Righini C, Olivennes F, Taylor S, De Ziegler D, Frydman R. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(7):1968–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fanchin R, Ayoubi JM, Righini C, Olivennes F, Schönauer LM, Frydman R. Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(6):1115–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Moon HS, Park SH, Lee JO, Kim KS, Joo BS. Treatment with piroxicam before embryo transfer increases the pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(4):816–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Moraloglu O, Tonguc E, Var T, Zeyrek T, Batioglu S. Treatment with oxytocin antagonists before embryo transfer may increase implantation rates after IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3):338–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kupesic Plavsic S. New imaging diagnostics. In: Simon C, Giudice L, editors. The endometrial factor. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2017. p. 15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Simón C, Martín JC, Pellicer A. Paracrine regulators of implantation. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;14:815–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kupesic S, Bekavac I, Bjelos D, Kurjak A. Assessment of endometrial receptivity by transvaginal color Doppler and three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization procedures. J Ultrasound Med [Internet]. 2001;20(2):125–34. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11211132.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ng EH, Chan CC, Tang OS, Yeung WS, Ho PC. Changes in endometrial and subendometrial blood flow in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online [Internet]. 2009;18(2):269–75. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=19192349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ng EHY, Chan CCW, Tang OS, Yeung WSB, Ho PC. The role of endometrial and subendometrial blood flows measured by three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of pregnancy during IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(1):164–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim A, Jung H, Choi WJ, Hong SN, Kim HY. Detection of endometrial and subendometrial vasculature on the day of embryo transfer and prediction of pregnancy during fresh in vitro fertilization cycles. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53(3):360–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. El-Zenneni H, Moustafa R, Abdel-Hafeez M, El-Salally H, Abdel-Kader A, Elnaggar A. Assessment of uterine, subendometrial blood flows and endometrial gland vascular endothelial growth factor (EG-VEGF) in women with unexplained infertility. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2015;20(2):119–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bhal PS, Pugh ND, Gregory L, O’Brien S, Shaw RW. Perifollicular vascularity as a potential variable affecting outcome in stimulated intrauterine insemination treatment cycles: a study using transvaginal power Doppler. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(8):1682–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Robson SJ, Barry M, Norman RJ. Power Doppler assessment of follicle vascularity at the time of oocyte retrieval in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(6):2179–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Clewes J, Joergner I, Dehghani Bonaki S, Chamberlain S, et al. SonoAVC: a novel method of automatic volume calculation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):691–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Ata B, Tulandi T. Ultrasound automated volume calculation in reproduction and in pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2163–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ata B, Seyhan A, Reinblatt SL, Shalom-Paz E, Krishnamurthy S, Tan SL. Comparison of automated and manual follicle monitoring in an unrestricted population of 100 women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):127–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Deb S, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Raine-Fenning NJ. Quantitative analysis of antral follicle number and size: a comparison of two-dimensional and automated three-dimensional ultrasound techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(3):354–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Deb S, Jayaprakasan K, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Johnson IR, Raine-Fenning NJ. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of automated antral follicle counts made using three-dimensional ultrasound and SonoAVC. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(4):477–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Vandekerckhove F, Bracke V, De Sutter P. The value of automated follicle volume measurements in IVF/ICSI. Front Surg. 2014;1:18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Murtinger M, Aburumieh A, Rubner P, Eichel V, Zech MH, Zech NH. Improved monitoring of ovarian stimulation using 3D transvaginal ultrasound plus automated volume count. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(5):695–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Dewailly D, Lujan ME, Carmina E, Cedars MI, Laven J, Norman RJ, et al. Definition and significance of polycystic ovarian morphology: a task force report from the androgen excess and polycystic ovary syndrome society. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):334–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Dewailly D, Gronier H, Poncelet E, Robin G, Leroy M, Pigny P, et al. Diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): revisiting the threshold values of follicle count on ultrasound and of the serum AMH level for the definition of polycystic ovaries. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(11):3123–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Kelsey TW, Dodwell SK, Wilkinson AG, Greve T, Andersen CY, Anderson RA, et al. Ovarian volume throughout life: a validated normative model. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e71465.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Lujan ME, Jarrett BY, Brooks ED, Reines JK, Peppin AK, Muhn N, et al. Updated ultrasound criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome: reliable thresholds for elevated follicle population and ovarian volume. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(5):1361–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Engmann L, Sladkevicius P, Agrawal R, Bekir JS, Campbell S, Tan SL. Value of ovarian stromal blood flow velocity measurement after pituitary suppression in the prediction of ovarian responsiveness and outcome of in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(1):22–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Predictors of IVF outcome by three-dimensional ultrasound. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2002;17(4):950–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11925388.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Kupesic S, Plavsic BM. 2D and 3D hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography in the assessment of uterine cavity and tubal patency. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;133(1):64–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Jiangxiu Y, Mingjin C, Weixiang L, Zhifeng D, Yinong X. Diagnostic efficacy of 3-D hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography in the detection of tubal occlusion: systematic meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41(9):1418–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wang Y, Qian L. Three- or four-dimensional hysterosalpingo contrast sonography for diagnosing tubal patency in infertile females: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1063):20151013. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20151013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Exacoustos C, Di Giovanni A, Szabolcs B, Romeo V, Romanini ME, Luciano D, et al. Automated three-dimensional coded contrast imaging hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography: feasibility in office tubal patency testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(3):328–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Benacerraf BR, Groszmann Y, Hornstein MD, Bromley B. Deep infiltrating endometriosis of the bowel wall: the comet sign. J Ultrasound Med [Internet]. 2015;34(3):537–42. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25715375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Reid S, Lu C, Casikar I, Reid G, Abbott J, Cario G, et al. Prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration in women with suspected endometriosis using a new real-time dynamic transvaginal ultrasound technique: the sliding sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):685–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Minguez JA, Jurado M, Mais V, Melis GB, et al. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of deep endometriosis in uterosacral ligaments, rectovaginal septum, vagina and bladder: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(5):534–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Arya S, Kupesic Plavsic S. Preimplantation 3D ultrasound: current uses and challenges. J Perinat Med. 2017;45:745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA

    Sanja Kupesic-Plavsic MD, PhD & Sushila Arya MD

Authors
  1. Sanja Kupesic-Plavsic MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sushila Arya MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanja Kupesic-Plavsic MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

    Joseph G. Schenker

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, Chicago, USA

    John J. Sciarra

  3. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holst, Kiel, Germany

    Liselotte Mettler

  4. International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea R. Genazzani

  5. Professor emeritus of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Martin Birkhaeuser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 IAHR (International Academy of Human Reproduction)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kupesic-Plavsic, S., Arya, S. (2018). Future of Imaging in Human Reproduction. In: Schenker, J., Sciarra, J., Mettler, L., Genazzani, A., Birkhaeuser, M. (eds) Reproductive Medicine for Clinical Practice. Reproductive Medicine for Clinicians, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78009-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78009-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78008-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78009-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation