Advertisement

Ultraschall in der Reproduktionsmedizin

  • Jan WeichertEmail author
  • Andreas Schröer
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Medizin book series (SRM)

Zusammenfassung

Die sonografische Beurteilung der inneren Genitalorgane ist eine der Basisuntersuchungen im Rahmen der Infertilitätsdiagnostik. Neben der Feststellung des individuellen Hormonstatus ist eine detaillierte B-Bilddiagnostik zum Ausschluss von Uterusanomalien, Adnextumoren und anderen Auffälligkeiten des kleinen Beckens obligat. Darüber hinaus bietet die Beurteilung der Endometriumstärke und -textur, die Follikulometrie und die Dopplersonografie der uterinen und ovariellen Perfusion die Möglichkeit dar, anatomische Veränderungen der uterinen Feinstruktur erkennen bzw. Aussagen zur ovariellen Reserve treffen zu können – noch vor der Veranlassung weiterführender interventioneller (Hysterosalpingographie) und invasiver diagnostischer Maßnahmen (Laparoskopie mit Chromopertubation).

Literatur

  1. Abdallah Y, Naji O, Saso S, Pexsters A, Stalder C, Sur S, Raine-Fenning N, Timmerman D, Brosens JJ, Bourne T (2012) Ultrasound assessment of the peri-implantation uterus: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:612–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ait Benkaddour Y, Gervaise A, Fernandez H (2010) Which is the method of choice for evaluating uterine cavity in infertility workup? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 39:606–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcázar JL, Martinez-Astorquiza Corral T, Orozco R, Dominguez-Piriz J, Juez L, Errasti T (2016) Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography for the assessment of tubal patency in women with infertility: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Investig 81:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allemand MC, Tummon IS, Phy JL, Foong SC, Dumesic DA, Session DR (2006) Diagnosis of polycystic ovaries by three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound. Fertil Steril 85:214–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Fertility Society (1988) The American Fertility Society classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, distal tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies. Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49:944–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arora P, Arora RS, Cahill D (2014) Essure(®) for management of hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilisation-a systematic review and pooled analysis. BJOG 121:527–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayida G, Chamberlain P, Barlow D, Kennedy S (1997) Uterine cavity assessment prior to in vitro fertilization: comparison of transvaginal scanning, saline contrast hysterosonography and hysteroscopy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 10:59–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barbosa MW, Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou SI, Mijatovic V, Nastri CO, Martins WP (2016) High miscarriage rate in women treated with Essure® for hydrosalpinx before embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48:556–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barton SE, Politch JA, Benson CB, Ginsburg ES, Gargiulo AR (2011) Transabdominal follicular aspiration for oocyte retrieval in patients with ovaries inaccessible by transvaginal ultrasound. Fertil Steril 9(5):1773–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B (2008) Which patients benefit from a 3D reconstructed coronal view of the uterus added to standard routine 2D pelvic sonography? AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:626–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benacerraf BR, Groszmann Y, Hornstein MD, Bromley B (2015) Deep infiltrating endometriosis of the bowel wall: the comet sign. J Ultrasound Med 34:537–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bermejo C, Martínez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Pérez Pedregosa J, Barrón E, Labrador E, Ruiz López L (2010) Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:593–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhagavath B, Ellie G, Griffiths KM, Winter T, Alur-Gupta S, Richardson C, Lindheim SR (2017) Uterine malformations: an update of diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Surv 72:377–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Binder H, Griesinger G, Kiesel L (2007) Ovarielles Überstimulationssyndrom. Gynäkol Endokrinol 5:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bocca SM, Oehninger S, Stadtmauer L, Agard J, Duran EH, Sarhan A, Horton S, Abuhamad AZ (2012) A study of the cost, accuracy, and benefits of 3-dimensional sonography compared with hysterosalpingography in women with uterine abnormalities. J Ultrasound Med 31:81–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bodri D, Colodrón M, García D, Obradors A, Vernaeve V, Coll O (2011) Transvaginal versus transabdominal ultrasound guidance for embryo transfer in donor oocyte recipients: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 95:2263–2268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bouyer J, Job-Spira N, Pouly JL, Coste J, Germain E, Fernandez H (2000) Fertility following radical, conservative-surgical or medical treatment for tubal pregnancy: a population-based study. BJOG 107:714–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chamié LP, Blasbalg R, Pereira RM, Warmbrand G, Serafini PC (2011) Findings of pelvic endometriosis at transvaginal US, MR imaging, and laparoscopy. Radiographics 31:E77–E100Google Scholar
  19. Chen F, Quan J, Huang P, You X (2017) Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with four-dimensional technique for screening fallopian tubal patency: let’s make an exploration. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24(3):407–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Choi HJ, Im KS, Jung HJ, Lim KT, Mok JE, Kwon YS (2011) Clinical analysis of ovarian pregnancy: a report of 49 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158:87–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coccia ME, Rizzello F (2011) Ultrasonografic staging: a new staging system for deep endometriosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1221:61–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coelho Neto MA, Ludwin A, Borrell A, Benacerraf B, Dewailly D, da Silva Costa F, Condous G, Alcazar JL, Jokubkiene L, Guerriero S, Van den Bosch T, Martins WP (2017) Counting ovarian antral follicles by ultrasound: a practical guide. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18945. [Epub ahead of print]
  23. Committee on Practice Bulletins – Gynecology (2018) ACOG practice bulletin no. 191: tubal ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 131:e65–e77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Condous G (2007) Ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Semin Reprod Med 25:85–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Condous G, Okaro E, Khalid A et al (2005) The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery. Hum Reprod 20:1404–1409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Crochet JR, Bastian LA, Chireau MV (2013) Does this woman have an ectopic pregnancy?: the rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA 309:1722–1729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dechaud H, Hedon B (2000) What effect does hydrosalpnx have on assisted reproduction? The role of salpingectomy remains controversial. Hum Reprod 15:234–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Demir B, Kocak M, Beydilli G, Kaplan M, Gelisen O, Haberal A (2011) Diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of color Doppler mapping for tubal patency. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 37:782–786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Deutsches IVF-Register (2011) Jahresbericht 2010. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol 8(4):1–39Google Scholar
  30. Dewailly D, Gronier H, Poncelet E, Robin G, Leroy M, Pigny P, Duhamel A, Catteau-Jonard S (2011) 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 26:3123–3129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dewailly D, Lujan ME, Carmina E, Cedars MI, Laven J, Norman RJ, Escobar-Morreale HF (2014) Definition and significance of polycystic ovarian morphology: a task force report from the Androgen excess and polycystic ovary syndrome society. Hum Reprod Update 20:334–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Donnez J, Nisolle M, Gillet N, Smets M, Bassil S, Casanas-Roux F (1996) Large ovarian endometriomas. Hum Reprod 11:641–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Ledertoug S, Olesen F (2002) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis, mapping, and measurement of uterine myomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:409–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dunselman GA, Vermeulen N, Becker C, Calhaz-Jorge C, D’Hooghe T, De Bie B, Heikinheimo O, Horne AW, Kiesel L, Nap A, Prentice A, Saridogan E, Soriano D, Nelen W, European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (2014) ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod 29:400–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. El-Mazny A, Ramadan W, Kamel A, Gad-Allah S (2016) Effect of hydrosalpinx on uterine and ovarian hemodynamics in women with tubal factor infertility. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 199:55–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Emanuel MH, Exalto N (2011) Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy). A new technique to visualize tubal patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:497–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Exacoustos C, Di Giovanni A, Szabolcs B, Binder-Reisinger H, Gabardi C, Arduini D (2009) Automated sonografic tubal patency evaluation with three-dimensional coded contrast imaging (CCI) during hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34:609–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Exacoustos C, Brienza L, Di Giovanni A, Szabolcs B, Romanini ME, Zupi E, Arduini D (2011) Adenomyosis: three-dimensional sonografic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:471–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Faivre E, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, Gervaise A, Frydman R, Levaillant JM (2012) Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uterus compared with office hysteroscopy and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19:101–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fatemi HM, Kasius JC, Timmermans A, van Disseldorp J, Fauser BC, Devroey P, Broekmans FJ (2010) Prevalence of unsuspected uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by office hysteroscopy prior to in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 25:1959–1965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fauser BC, Tarlatzis BC, Rebar RW, Legro RS, Balen AH, Lobo R, Carmina E, Chang J, Yildiz BO, Laven JS, Boivin J, Petraglia F, Wijeyeratne CN, Norman RJ, Dunaif A, Franks S, Wild RA, Dumesic D, Barnhart K (2012) Consensus on women’s health aspects of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): the Amsterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored 3rd PCOS consensus workshop group. Fertil Steril 97:28–38.e25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fouda UM, Sayed AM, Abdelmoty HI, Elsetohy KA (2015) Ultrasound guided aspiration of hydrosalpinx fluid versus salpingectomy in the management of patients with ultrasound visible hydrosalpinx undergoing IVF-ET: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Womens Health 15:21PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Frates MC, Visweswaran A, Laing FC (2001) Comparison of tubal ring and corpus luteum echogenicities: a useful differentiating characteristic. J Ultrasound Med 20:27–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, Meriggiola MC, Gubbini G, Pilu G, Pelusi C, Pelusi G (2009) Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 92:808–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Giugliano E, Cagnazzo E, Bazzan E, Patella A, Marci R (2012) Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography: is possible to quantify the therapeutic effect of a diagnostic test? Clin Exp Reprod Med 39:161–165PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Grimbizis GF, Campo R (2010) Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: the need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril 94:401–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li TC, Tanos V, Brölmann H, Gianaroli L, Campo R (2013) The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 28:2032–2044PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Groszmann YS, Benacerraf BR (2016) Complete evaluation of anatomy and morphology of the infertile patient in a single visit; the modern infertility pelvic ultrasound examination. Fertil Steril 105:1381–1393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gunby J, Bissonnette F, Librach C, Cowan L, IVF Directors Group of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (2008) Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2004 results from the Canadian ART register. Fertil Steril 89:1123–1132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hajishaiha M, Ghasemi-Rad M, Karimpour N, Mladkova N, Boromand F (2011) Transvaginal sonografic evaluation at different menstrual cycle phases in diagnosis of uterine lesions. Int J Womens Health 3:353–357PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Hammadieh N, Coomarasamy A, Ola B, Papaioannou S, Afnan M, Sharif K (2008) Ultrasound-guided hydrosalpinx aspiration during oocyte collection improves pregnancy outcome in IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 23:1113–1117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hickey M, Doherty DA, Atkinson H, Sloboda DM, Franks S, Norman RJ, Hart R (2011) Clinical, ultrasound and biochemical features of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents: implications for diagnosis. Hum Reprod 26:1469–1477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Horowitz E, Orvieto R, Rabinerson D, Yoeli R, Bar-Hava I (2006) Hysteroscopy combined with hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy): a new modality for comprehensive evaluation of the female pelvic organs. Gynecol Endocrinol 22:225–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Huang M, Li X, Guo P, Yu Z, Xu Y, Wei Z (2017) The abnormal expression of oxytocin receptors in the uterine junctional zone in women with endometriosis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 15:1PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hudelist G, Ballard K, English J, Wright J, Banerjee S, Mastoroudes H, Thomas A, Singer CF, Keckstein J (2011) Transvaginal sonography vs. clinical examination in the preoperative diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:480–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Imaoka I, Wada A, Matsuo M, Yoshida M, Kitagaki H, Sugimura K (2003) MR imaging of disorders associated with female infertility: use in diagnosis, treatment, and management. Radiographics 23:1401–1421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Imboden S, Müller M, Raio L, Mueller MD, Tutschek B (2014) Clinical significance of 3D ultrasound compared to MRI in uterine malformations. Ultraschall Med 35:440–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Imthurn B, Maurer-Major E, Stiller R (2008) Sterilität/Infertilität – Ursachen und Abklärung. Schweiz Med Forum 8:124–130Google Scholar
  59. Jiang H, Pei H, Zhang WX, Wang XM (2010) A prospective clinical study of interventional ultrasound sclerotherapy on women with hydrosalpinx before in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 94:2854–2856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Johnson NP, Mak W, Sowter MC (2002) Laparoscopic salpingectomy for women with hydrosalpinges enhances the success of IVF: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 17:543–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Johnson N, van Voorst S, Sowter MC, Strandell A, Mol BW (2010) Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD002125Google Scholar
  62. Jong N de, Emmer M, van Wamel A, Versluis M (2009) Ultrasonic characterization of ultrasound contrast agents. Med Biol Eng Comput 47: 861–873Google Scholar
  63. Jozwiak EA, Ulug U, Akman MA, Bahceci M (2003) Successful resection of a heterotopic cervical pregnancy resulting from intracytoplasmatic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 79:428–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jun SH, Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C, Wise LA, Hornstein MD (2001) Uterine leiomyomas and their effect on in virto fertilisation outcome: a retrospective study. J Assist Reprod Genet 18:139–143PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jurkovic D, Memtsa M, Sawyer E, Donaldson AN, Jamil A, Schramm K, Sana Y, Otify M, Farahani L, Nunes N, Ambler G, Ross JA (2017) Single-dose systemic methotrexate vs expectant management for treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: a placebo-controlled randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 9:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, Ghaem-Maghami S, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Van Calster B (2014) Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 20:449–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kataoka ML, Togashi K, Kobayashi H, Inoue T, Fujii S, Konishi J (1999) Evaluation of ectopic pregnancy by magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod 14:2644–2650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Killick SR (1999) Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography as a screening test for tubal patency in infertile women. J R Soc Med 92:628–631PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kim MY, Rha SE, Oh SN, Jung SE, Lee YJ, Kim YS, Byun JY, Lee A, Kim MR (2009) MRImaging findings of hydrosalpinx: a comprehensive review. Radiographics 29:495–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kim HJ, Adams JM, Gudmundsson JA, Arason G, Pau CT, Welt CK (2017) Polycystic ovary morphology: age-based ultrasound criteria. Fertil Steril 108:548–553PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kiyokawa K, Masuda H, Fuyuki T, Koseki M, Uchida N, Fukuda T, Amemiya K, Shouka K, Suzuki K (2000) Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (3D-HyCoSy) as an outpatient procedure to assess infertile women: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 16:648–654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kleinkauf-Houcken A, Hüneke B, Lindner C, Braendle W (1997) Combining B-mode ultrasound with pulsed wave Doppler for the assessment of tubal patency. Hum Reprod 12:2457–2460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Leone FP, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Valentin L, Epstein E, Goldstein SR, Marret H, Parsons AK, Gull B, Istre O, Sepulveda W, Ferrazzi E, van den Bosch T (2010) Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35: 103–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Levy G, Hill MJ, Ramirez CI, Correa L, Ryan ME, DeCherney AH, Levens ED, Whitcomb BW (2012) The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 27:2373–2379PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lie Fong S, Laven JSE, Duhamel A, Dewailly D (2017) Polycystic ovarian morphology and the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome: redefining threshold levels for follicle count and serum anti-Müllerian hormone using cluster analysis. Hum Reprod 32:1723–1731PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lim CP, Hasafa Z, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A (2011) Should a hysterosalpingogram be a first-line investigation to diagnose female tubal subfertility in the modern subfertility workup? Hum Reprod 26:967–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lindborg L, Thorburn J, Bergh C, Strandell A (2009) Influence of HyCoSy on spontaneous pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 24:1075–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lipscomb GH (2007) Medical therapy for ectopic pregnancy. Semin Reprod Med 25:93 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lo Monte G, Capobianco G, Piva I, Caserta D, Dessole S, Marci R (2015) Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy): let’s make the point! Arch Gynecol Obstet 291:19–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Johns DA, Luciano AA (2011) Can hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography replace hysterosalpingography in confirming tubal blockage after hysteroscopic sterilization and in the evaluation of the uterus and tubes in infertile patients? Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:79.e1–79.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ludwig AK, Glawatz M, Griesinger G, Diedrich K, Ludwig M (2006) Perioperative and post-operative complications of transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval: prospective study of >1000 oocyte retrievals. Hum Reprod 21:3235–3240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ludwin A, Ludwin I (2015) Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Müllerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod 30:569–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ludwin I, Ludwin A, Wiechec M, Nocun A, Banas T, Basta P, Pitynski K (2017a) Accuracy of hysterosalpingo-foam sonography in comparison to hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with air/saline and to laparoscopy with dye. Hum Reprod 32:758–769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Ludwin A, Nastri CO, Ludwin I, Martins WP (2017b) The „flaming tube“ sign at hysterosalpingo-lidocaine-foam sonography combined with Power Doppler imaging (HyLiFoSy-PD): description of the technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17420
  85. Ludwin A, Martins WP, Nastri CO, Ludwin I, Coelho Neto MA, Leitão VM, Acién M, Alcazar JL, Benacerraf B, Condous G, De Wilde RL, Emanuel MH, Gibbons W, Guerriero S, Hurd WW, Levine D, Lindheim S, Pellicer A, Petraglia F, Saridogan E (2018) Congenital uterine malformation by experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51:101–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Makris N, Kalmantis K, Skartados N, Papadimitriou A, Mantzaris G, Antsaklis A (2007) Three-dimensional hysterosonography versus hysteroscopy for the detection of intracavitary uterine abnormalities. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 97:6–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Malak M, Tawfeeq T, Holzer H, Tulandi T (2011) Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization treatment. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33:617–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mandia L, Personeni C, Antonazzo P, Angileri SA, Pinto A, Savasi V (2017) Ultrasound in Infertility Setting: optimal strategy to evaluate the assessment of tubal patency. Biomed Res Int 2017:3205895.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3205895CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. Maubon A, Pouquet M, Piver P, Mazet N, Viala-Trentini M, Rouanet JP (2008) Imaging of female infertility. J Radiol 89(1 Pt 2):172–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Mohiyiddeen L, Hardiman A, Fitzgerald C, Hughes E, Mol BW, Johnson N, Watson A (2015) Tubal flushing for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD003718.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Mueller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR, Quint EH, Carlos RC, Johnson TD, DeLancey JO (2007) Müllerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1294–1302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Murray BH, Bardell T, Tulandi T (2005) Diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy. CMAJ 173:905–912PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Muzii L, Tucci CD, Feliciantonio MD, Galati G, Verrelli L, Donato VD, Marchetti C, Panici PB (2017) Management of endometriomas. Semin Reprod Med 35:25–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Naftalin J, Jurkovic D (2009) The endometrial-myometrial junction: a fresh look at a busy crossing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ng EH, Chan CC, Tang OS, Yeung WS, Ho PC (2009) Changes in endometrial and subendometrial blood flow in IVF. Reprod BioMed Online 18:269–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Noventa M, Gizzo S, Saccardi C, Borgato S, Vitagliano A, Quaranta M, Litta P, Gangemi M, Ambrosini G, D’Antona D, Palomba S (2016) Salpingectomy before assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic literature review. J Ovarian Res 9:74PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Nussbaum AR, Sanders RC, Jones MD (1986) Neonatal uterine morphology as seen on real-time US. Radiology 160:641–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. O’Brien P, Neyastani A, Buckley AR, Chang SD, Legiehn GM (2006) Uterine arteriovenous malformations: from diagnosis to treatment. J Ultrasound Med 25:1387–1392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Pan HS, Chuang J, Chi SF, Hsieh BC, Lin H, Tsai YL, Huang SC, Hsieh ML, Chen CY, Hwang JL (2002) Heterotopic triplet pregnancy: report of a case with bilateral tubal pregnancy and an intrauterine pregnancy. Hum Reprod 17:1363–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Pan J, Qian Y, Wang J (2010) Bilateral interstitial pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer with bilateral fallopian tube resection detected by transvaginal sonography. J Ultrasound Med 29:1829–1832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Piccioni MG, Riganelli L, Filippi V, Fuggetta E, Colagiovanni V, Imperiale L, Caccetta J, Panici PB, Porpora MG (2017) Sonohysterosalpingography: comparison of foam and saline solution. J Clin Ultrasound 45:67–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Pundir J, El Toukhy T (2010) Uterine cavity assessment prior to IVF. Women’s Health (Lond Engl) 6:841–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Raine-Fenning N (2008) Doppler assessment of uterine artery blood flow for the prediction of pregnancy after assisted reproduction treatment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:371–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Raine-Fenning N, Fleischer AC (2005) Clarifying the role of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in reproductive medicine: an evidenced-based appraisal. J Exp Clin Assist Reprod 2:10PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Reis MM, Soares SR, Cancado ML, Camargos AF (1998) Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy) with SH U 454 (Echovist) for the assessment of tubal patency. Hum Reprod 31:3049–3052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Roman-Rodriguez CF, Weissbrot E, Hsu CD, Wong A, Siefert C, Sung L (2015) Comparing transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound-guided follicular aspiration: a risk assessment formula. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 54:693–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Ross JA, Davison AZ, Sana Y, Appiah A, Johns J, Lee CT (2013) Ovum transmigration after salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod 28:937–941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS consensus workshop group (2004) Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Hum Reprod 19:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sakhel K, Benson CB, Platt LD, Goldstein SR, Benacerraf BR (2013) Begin With the Basics. Role of 3-Dimensional Sonography as a First-line Imaging Technique in the Cost-effective Evaluation of Gynecologic Pelvic Disease. J Ultrasound Med 32:381–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Salim R, Regan L, Woelfer B, Bacos M, Jurkovic D (2003) Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21:578 582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Sarevelos SH, Jayaprakasan K, Ojha K, Li, TC (2017) Assessment of the uterus with three- dimensional ultrasound in women undergoing ART. Hum Reprod Update 23:188–210Google Scholar
  112. Saunders RD, Shwayder JM, Nakajima ST (2011) Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril 95:2171–2179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Saxon D, Falcone T, Mascha EJ, Marino T, Yao M, Tulandi T (1997) A study of ruptured tubal ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 90:46–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Schippert C, Staboulidou I, Schlösser HW (2007) Operative Sterilitätsdiagnostik und -therapie. CME Praktische Fortbildung Gynäkologie. Geburtsmedizin Gynäkologische Endokrinologie 1:4–16Google Scholar
  115. Schwärzler P, Consin H, Wohlgenannt K (1997) Kontrastgebende Medien in der vaginosonografischen Uterus- und Tubendiagnostik. Ultraschall Med 18:8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2007) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2001 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil Steril 87:1253–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Sohan K, Woodward B, Ramsewak SS (2004) Successful use of transrectal ultrasound for embryo transfer in obese women. J Obstet Gynaecol 24:839–840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Spencer ES, Hoff HS, Steiner AZ, Coward RM (2017) Immediate ureterovaginal fistula following oocyte retrieval: a case and systematic review of the literature. Urol Ann 9:125–130PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Statistisches Bundesamt. Mikrozensus (2013) Fragen zur Gesundheit. Körpermaße der Bevölkerung, Wiesbaden, 2014. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Gesundheit/Gesundheitszustand/Koerpermasse5239003139004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
  120. Stein MW, Ricci ZJ, Novak L, Roberts JH, Koenigsberg M (2004) Sonografic comparison of the tubal ring of ectopic pregnancy with the corpus luteum. J Ultrasound Med 23:57–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, Hillstrom MM (2009) Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics 29:1353–1370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Strandell A (2000) The influence of hydrosalpinx on IVF and embryo transfer: a review. Hum Reprod Update 6:387–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenström U, Thorburn J, Janson PO, Hamberger L (1999) Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: a prospective, randomized multicentre trial in Scandinavia on salpingectomy prior to IVF. Hum Reprod 14:2762–2769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Syla BH, Fetiu SS, Tafarshiku SS (2011) Transabdominal two- and three-dimensional color Doppler imaging of a uterine arteriovenous malformation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:376–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Tamai K, Koyama T, Togashi K (2007) MR features of ectopic pregnancy. Eur Radiol 17:3236–3246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Tayal VS, Crean CA, Norton HJ, Schulz CJ, Bacalis KN, Bliss S (2008) Prospective comparative trial of endovaginal sonografic bimanual examination versus traditional digital bimanual examination in nonpregnant women with lower abdominal pain with regard to body mass index classification. J Ultrasound Med 27:1171–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Testa AC, Timmerman D, Van Holsbeke C, Zannoni GF, Fransis S, Moerman P, Vellone V, Mascilini F, Licameli A, Ludovisi M, Di Legge A, Scambia G, Ferrandina G (2011) Ovarian cancer arising in endometrioid cysts: ultrasound findings. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:99–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Tews G, Ebner T, Jesacher KJ (2004) Besonderheiten der ektopen Schwangerschaft nach IVF/ICSIReproduktionsmed. Endokrinol 1:268–271Google Scholar
  129. Timmerman D, Wauters J, Van Calenbergh S, Van Schoubroeck D, Maleux G, Van Den Bosch T, Spitz B (2003) Color Doppler imaging is a valuable tool for the diagnosis and management of uterine vascular malformations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21:570–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, Van Holsbeke C, Savelli L, Fruscio R, Lissoni AA, Testa AC, Veldman J, Vergote I, Van Huffel S, Bourne T, Valentin L (2010) Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 341:c6839PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa A, Savelli L, Fischerova D, Froyman W, Wynants L, Van Holsbeke C, Epstein E, Franchi D, Kaijser J, Czekierdowski A, Guerriero S, Fruscio R, Leone FPG, Rossi A, Landolfo C, Vergote I, Bourne T, Valentin L (2016) Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the simple rules from the international ovarian tumor analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214:424–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Timor-Tritsch IE, Goldstein SR (2010) Skilled US imaging of the adnexae. Part 4: the fallopian tubes. OBG Manag 22:34–42Google Scholar
  133. Tsiami A, Chaimani A, Mavridis D, Siskou M, Assimakopoulos E, Sotiriadis A (2016) Surgical treatment for hydrosalpinx prior to in-vitro fertilization embryo transfer: a network meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48:434–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Unterweger M, De Geyter C, Fröhlich JM, Bongartz G, Wiesner W (2002) Three-dimensional dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography; a new, low invasive, radiation-free and less painful radiological approach to female infertility. Hum Reprod 17:3138–3141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Valentin L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Metzger U, Lécuru F, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D (2006) Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27:438–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Van Schoubroeck D, Van den Bosch T, Meuleman C, Tomassetti C, D’Hooghe T, Timmerman D (2013) The use of a new gel foam for the evaluation of tubal patency. Gynecol Obstet Investig 75:152–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Vries L de, Phillip M. Role of pelvic ultrasound in girls with precocious puberty. Horm Res Paediatr 2011; 75:148–152Google Scholar
  138. Wang Y, Qian L (2016) Three- or four-dimensional hysterosalpingo contrast sonography for diagnosing tubal patency in infertile females: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 89(1063):20151013.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20151013. Epub 2016 Apr 25
  139. Weichert J, Hartge DR (2011) Obstetrical sonography in obese women: a review. J Clin Ultrasound 39:209–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Wertheimer A, Nagar R, Oron G, Meizner I, Fisch B, Ben-Haroush A (2017) Fertility treatment outcomes after follicle tracking with standard 2-dimensional sonography versus 3-dimensional sonography-based automated volume count: prospective study. J Ultrasound Med.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14421
  141. Winder S, Reid S, Condous G (2011) Ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Australas J Ultrasound Med 14:29–33PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Winter L, Glücker T, Steimann S, Fröhlich JM, Steinbrich W, De Geyter C, Pegios W (2010) Feasibility of dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography for the diagnostic work-up of infertile women. Acta Radiol 51:693–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Wirleitner B, Okhowat J, Vištejnová L, Králíčková M, Karlíková M, Vanderzwalmen P, Ectors F, Hradecký L, Schuff M, Murtinger M (2018) Relationship between follicular volume and oocyte competence, blastocyst development and live-birth rate: optimal follicle size for oocyte retrieval. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51:118–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Woelfer B, Salim R, Banerjee S, Elson J, Regan L, Jurkovic D (2001) Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol 98:1099–1103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. Wolff M von, Santi A (2011) Laparoskopische Follikelpunktion. Gynäkol Endokrinol 9:58–59Google Scholar
  146. Wolff M von, Hua YZ, Santi A, Ocon E, Weiss B (2013) Follicle flushing in monofollicular in vitro fertilization almost doubles the number of transferable embryos. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92: 346–348Google Scholar
  147. Zhou L, Zhang X, Chen X, Liao L, Pan R, Zhou N, Di N (2012) The value of three-dimensional hystero-salpingo-contrast sonography with SonoVue in the assessment of tubal patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11085
  148. Zinn HL, Cohen HL, Zinn DL (1997) Ultrasonografic diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy: importance of transabdominal imaging. J Ultrasound Med 16:603–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bereich Pränatalmedizin und gynäkologische Sonographie, Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und GeburtshilfeUniverstätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus LübeckLübeckDeutschland
  2. 2.Zentrum für Pränataldiagnostik und HumangenetikBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations