nach oben

Abdominal Radiology

Erschienen in:

01.08.2015 | Pictorial Essay

Hysterosalpingography: an imaging Atlas with cross-sectional correlation

verfasst von: Karyn A. Ledbetter, Monisha Shetty, Daniel T. Myers

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 6/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Hysterosalpingography (HSG) provides a unique combination of both fallopian tube and uterine cavity evaluation. A comprehensive understanding of both HSG and correlative cross-sectional imaging findings are essential radiologic skills. This article will review the spectrum of technical artifacts, anatomic variants, congenital uterine anomalies, uterine and tubal pathology, and postsurgical findings as they appear on HSG. Additionally, correlation with MR and ultrasound images is provided. This review article serves as a reference for residents new to HSG as well as staff who perform and interpret HSG infrequently.

Simpson WL, Beitia LG, Mester J (2006) Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. Radiographics 26:419–431PubMedCrossRef

Ott DJ, Fayez JA, Chen MYM (1998) Techniques of hysterosalpingography. In: Hysterosalpingography: a text and Atlas, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, pp 11–27

Lindheim SR, Sprague C, Winter TC III (2006) Hysterosalpingography and sonohysterography: lessons in technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(1):24–29PubMedCrossRef

Atkin KL, Balogun M (2013) Hysterosalpingography: a resurgent study, 100 years after it was first performed. Imaging 22:90763188CrossRef

Chen MYM, Zagoria RJ (1998) Normal radiographic anatomy. In: Hysterosalpingography: a text and Atlas, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, pp 29–30

Úbeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, Abuin RA (2001) Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathologic findings. AJR 177:131–135PubMedCrossRef

Yoder IC, Hall DA (1991) Hysterosalpingography in the 1990s. AJR Am J Roentgenol 157:675–683PubMedCrossRef

La Fianza A, Fanchinetti C, Garone MS (2005) Venous-lymphatic intravasation during hysterosalpingography using hydrosoluble contrast medium: a technique with no complications. J Women’s Imaging 7(1):38–43CrossRef

Soules MR, Spadoni LR (1982) Oil versus aqueous media for hysterosalpingography: a continuing debate based on many opinions and few facts. Fertil Steril 38:1–11PubMed

10.

Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A (2012) Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics 32(6):E233–E250PubMedCrossRef

11.

Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, et al. (2011) The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 17(6):761–771PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

12.

Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P (2001) Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 7(2):161–174PubMedCrossRef

13.

Acién P (1997) Incidence of Müllerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod 12(7):1372–1376PubMedCrossRef

14.

Golan A, Langer R, Bukovsky I, Caspi E (1989) Congenital anomalies of the Müllerian system. Fertil Steril 51:747–755PubMed

15.

Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, et al. (2009) Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics 29:1353–1370PubMedCrossRef

16.

Ott DJ, Fayez JA, Zagoria RJ, eds. (1998) Congenital anomalies. In: Hysterosalpingography: a text and Atlas, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, pp 59–69

17.

Buttram VC, Gomel V, Siegler A, et al. (1988) The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49(6):944–955

18.

Troiano RN, McCarthy SM (2004) Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233(1):19–34PubMedCrossRef

19.

Fedele L, Bianchi S, Agnoli B, Tozzi L, Vignali M (1996) Urinary tract anomalies associated with unicornuate uterus. J Urol 155(3):847–848PubMedCrossRef

20.

Sarto GE, Simpson JL (1978) Abnormalities of the Müllerian and Wolffian duct systems. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 14(6C):37–54PubMed

21.

Zanetti E, Ferrari LR, Rossi G (1978) Classification and radiographic features of uterine malformations: hysterosalpingographic study. Br J Radiol 51(603):161–170PubMedCrossRef

22.

Reuter KL, Daly DC, Cohen SM (1989) Septate versus bicornuate uteri: errors in imaging diagnosis. Radiology 172:749–752PubMedCrossRef

23.

Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, et al. (1990) Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 176:715–720PubMedCrossRef

24.

Fedele L, Ferrazzi E, Dorta M, Vercelllini P, Candiani GB (1988) Ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of “double” uteri. Fertil Steril 50:361–364PubMed

25.

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

26.

Tulandi T, Arronet GH, McInnes RA (1980) Arcuate and bicornuate uterine anomalies and infertility. Fertil Steril 34(4):362–364PubMed

27.

Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, et al. (2005) Adenomyosis in endometriosis—prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod 20:2309–2316PubMedCrossRef

28.

Tamai K, Togashi K, Tsuyoshi I, et al. (2005) MR imaging findings of adenomyosis. Radiographics 25:21–40PubMedCrossRef

29.

Wolfman DJ, Allison SJ, Ascher SM (2011) Imaging of benign uterine conditions. Appl Radiol 40(11):8

30.

Kuligowska E, Deeds L III, Lu K III (2005) Pelvic pain: overlooked and underdiagnosed gynecologic conditions. Radiographics 25:3–20PubMedCrossRef

31.

Murase E, Siegelman ES, Outwater EK, Perez-Jaffe LA, Turek RW (1999) Uterine leiomyomas: histopathologic features, MR imaging findings, differential diagnosis, and treatment. Radiographics 19:1179–1197PubMedCrossRef

32.

Thurmond AS (2003) Imaging of female infertility. Radiol Clin N Am 41:757–767PubMedCrossRef

33.

Asherman JG (1950) Traumatic intra-uterine adhesions. J Obstet Gynaecol 57:892–896CrossRef

34.

Ott DJ, Fayez JA (1998) Tubal and adnexal abnormalities. In: Hysterosalpingography: a text and Atlas, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, pp 90–93

35.

Kim MY, Rha SE, Oh SN, et al. (2009) MR imaging findings of hydrosalpinx: a comprehensive review. Radiographics 29:495–507PubMedCrossRef

36.

Wolf DM, Spataro RF (1988) The current state of hysterosalpingography. Radiographics 8(6):1041–1058PubMedCrossRef

37.

Karasick S, Goldfarb AF (1989) Peritubal adhesions in infertile women: diagnosis with hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 152(4):777–779PubMedCrossRef

38.

Surapenini K, Silberzweig JE (2008) Cesarean section scar diverticulum: appearance on hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(4):870–874CrossRef

39.

National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK) (2007) Heavy menstrual bleeding. NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 44. London: RCOG Press

40.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on (2010) Gynecologic practice. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 458: hysterosalpingography after tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 115(6):1343–1345CrossRef

41.

Guelfguat M, Gruenberg TR, et al. (2012) Imaging of mechanical tubal occlusion devices and potential complications. Radiographics 32:1659–1673PubMedCrossRef

42.

Khati NJ, Parghi CR, Brindle KA (2011) Multimodality imaging of the essure permanent birth control device: emphasis of commonly overlooked abnormalities. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W648–W658PubMedCrossRef

43.

Whittmer MH, Famutide AO, Creedon DJ, Hartman RP (2006) Hysterosalpingography for assessing efficacy of Essure microinsert permanent birth control device. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:955–958CrossRef

44.

Peri N, Graham D, Levine D (2007) Imaging of intrauterine conceptive devices. J Ultrasound Med 26(10):1389–1401PubMed

45.

Legendre G, Gervaise A, Levaillant JM, et al. (2010) Assessment of three-dimensional ultrasound examination classification to check the position of the tubal sterilization microinsert. Fertil Steril 94(7):2732–2735PubMedCrossRef

46.

Conceptus (2002). Essure physician training manual: HSG protocol. San Carlos, CA: Conceptus

47.

Hologic (2009). Adiana permanent contraception instructions for use. Marlborough, MA: Hologic

Titel: Hysterosalpingography: an imaging Atlas with cross-sectional correlation
verfasst von: Karyn A. Ledbetter
Monisha Shetty
Daniel T. Myers
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 6/2015
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0284-9

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Chronische Unterbauch- und Viszeralschmerzen in der Praxis managen"

Springer Medizin

Hysterosalpingography: an imaging Atlas with cross-sectional correlation

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

Update Radiologie

Live-Webinar "Chronische Unterbauch- und Viszeralschmerzen in der Praxis managen"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2015

The “fishnet” appearance

Erratum to: Automated volumetric analysis for comparison of oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) with established cathartic agents at CT colonography

Adult choledochal cysts: current update on classification, pathogenesis, and cross-sectional imaging findings

Not to forget portal cavernoma cholangiopathy: the great mimicker!

The role of MR–PET in abdominal and pelvic oncology

Optimal section thickness for detection of polyps at MR: resolution phantom study

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

Update Radiologie