{"paper_id":"3aa58cbf-adf1-4709-806f-867dad616906","body_text":"Abstract\nImaging of the female reproductive tract is the first step in the evaluation of infertility. Different techniques are available to image the uterus, the endometrium with the uterine cavity, the ovaries, and the tubes. Transabdominal (TAUS) and transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS), saline infusion sonography (SIS), hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy, or HyFoSy, when foam is used as a contrast), hysterosalpingogram (HSG), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can all be utilized and provide specific evaluation of specific pelvic organs. Laparoscopy and hysteroscopy can also be utilized to directly visualize the pelvic organs, but they carry the risks of surgical procedures, and do not allow for precise measurements of abnormalities, thus precluding a precise diagnosis (i.e., in the presence of a partial uterine septum, or ovarian masses with normal ovarian outline). However, they allow for a concurrent therapeutic intervention. Each procedure has advantages and disadvantages and can be the best approach in individual instances. The choice among the different imaging methods is dictated by the patient’s history and symptoms, in addition to the physician’s experience, but they do not exclude each other. In this chapter, we will critically appraise each of the imaging modalities to evaluate different pelvic organs, and we will make the argument that TVUS, with its versatility and low cost, should be the first imaging tool, in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients presenting with infertility.\nAccess this chapter\nTax calculation will be finalised at checkout\nPurchases are for personal use only\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nBenacerraf BR, Abuhamad AZ, Bromley B, Goldstein SR, Groszmann Y, Shipp TD, et al. Consider ultrasound first for imaging the female pelvis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:450–5.\nAIUM practice guideline for the performance of pelvic ultrasound examinations. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. J Ultrasound Med. 2010; 29:166–72.\nYuzpe AA, Brown SE, Casper RF, Nisker J, Graves G, Shatford L. Transvaginal, ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization. J Reprod Med. 1989;34:937–42.\nStrickler RC, Christianson C, Crane JP, Curato A, Knight AB, Yang V. Ultrasound guidance for human embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1985;43:54–61.\nFischer K, McDannold NJ, Tempany CM, Jolesz FA, Fennessy FM. Potential of minimally invasive procedures in the treatment of uterine fibroids: a focus on magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound therapy. Int J Women's Health. 2015;13(7):901–12.\nExacoustos C, Morosetti G, Conway F, Camilli S, Martire FG, Lazzeri L, et al. New sonographic classification of adenomyosis: do type and degree of adenomyosis correlate to severity of symptoms? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:1308–15.\nSunkara SK, Khairy M, El-Toukhy T, Khalaf Y, Coomarasamy A. The effect of intramural fibroids without uterine cavity involvement on the outcome of IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:418–29.\nSomigliana E, Vercellini P, Daguati R, Pasin R, De Giorgi O, Crosignani PG. Fibroids and female reproduction: a critical analysis of the evidence. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:465–76.\nNirgianakis K, Kalaitzopoulos DR, Schwartz ASK, Spaanderman M, Kramer BW, Mueller MD, et al. Fertility, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of patients with adenomyosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42:185–206.\nBahgavath B, Greiner E, Griffiths K, Winter T, Alur-Gupta S, Richardson C, et al. Uterine malformations: an update of diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2017;72:377–92.\nWoelfer B, Salim R, Banerjee S, Elson J, Regan L, Jurkovic D. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by threedimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1099–103.\nCheca MA, Bellver J, Bosch E, Espinós JJ, Fabregues F, Fontes J, et al. Hysteroscopic septum resection and reproductive medicine: a SWOT analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37:709–15.\nDetti L, Christiansen ME, Peregrin-Alvarez I, Roman RA, Levi D’Ancona R, Gordon JC. Correction of uterine subseptations re-establishes standard uterine cavity measurements. J Imaging. 2020;6:58. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging6070058.\nDetti L, Peregrin-Alvarez I, Roman RA, Levi D’Ancona R, Gordon JC, Christiansen ME. Diagnosis of uterine subseptations and indication for surgical correction: a comparison of four systems. Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2021;73:376–83.\nBermejo C, Martinez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Perez Pedregosa J, Barron E, et al. 3D ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with MRI. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:593–601.\nBocca SM, Oehninger S, Stadmauer L, Agard J, Duran EH, Sarhan A, et al. A study of the cost, accuracy and benefits of 3-dimensional sonography compared with hysterosalpingogram in females with uterine abnormalities. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:81–5.\nDishuck CF, Perchik JD, Porter KK, Gunn DD. Advanced imaging in female infertility. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:77.\nDeutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies: a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:413–23.\nTsuboyama T, Takei O, Okada A, Wada K, Kuriyama K. Effect of uterine position and intrapelvic motions on the image quality of 3D T2-weighted MRI of the uterus: can short prescans predict the non-diagnostic image quality? Eur J Radiol. 2020;130:109186.\nErgenoglu AM, Sahin Ç, Şimşek D, Akdemir A, Yeniel AÖ, 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.\nGhi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Saveli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of 3D ultrasound in the diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:808–13.\nCaliskan E, Ozkan S, Cakirogly Y, Sarisoy HT, Corakci A, Ozeren S. Diagnostic accuracy of real-time 3D sonography in the diagnosis of congenital mullerian anomalies in high-risk patients with respect to the phase of the menstrual cycle. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;38:123–7.\nSassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, Westhoff C, Warren WB. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:70–6.\nAndreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, Froyman W, Benacerraf BR, Bennett GL, et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: a consensus guideline from the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. Radiology. 2020;294:168–85.\nSokalska A, Timmerman D, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Lissoni AA, Leone FP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for assigning a specific diagnosis to adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:462–70.\nGuerriero S, Ajossa S, Lai MP, Mais V, Paoletti AM, Melis GB. Transvaginal ultrasonography associated with colour Doppler energy in the diagnosis of hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1568–72.\nNannini R, Chelo E, Branconi F, Tantini C, Scarselli GF. Dynamic echohysteroscopy: a new diagnostic technique in the study of female infertility. Acta Eur Fertil. 1981;12:165–71.\nBonnamy L, Marret H, Perrotin F, Body G, Berger C, Lansac J. Sonohysterography: a prospective survey of results and complications in 81 patients. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;102:42–7.\nSanin-Ramirez D, Carriles I, Graupera B, Ajossa S, Neri M, Rodriguez I, et al. Two-dimensional transvaginal sonography versus saline contrast sonohysterography for diagnosing endometrial polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;56:506–15.\nWidrich T, Bradley LD, Mitchinson AR, Collins RL. Comparison of saline infusion sonography with office hysteroscopy for the evaluation of the endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:1327–34.\nVitale SG, Haimovich S, Lagana AS, Alonso L, Di Spezio Sardo A, Carugno J. Endometrial polyps. An evidence-based diagnosis and management guide. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;260:70–7.\nNieuwenhuis LL, Hermans FJR, Bij de Vaate AJM, Leeflang MMG, Brölmann HAM, Hehenkamp WJK, et al. Three-dimensional saline infusion sonography compared to two-dimensional saline infusion sonography for the diagnosis of focal intracavitary lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017(5): CD011126.\nAIUM Practice Guideline for the Performance of Sonohysterography. Guideline developed in collaboration with the American College of Radiology; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34:1–6.\nACOG practice bulletin No. 104: antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1180–9.\nHulka CA, Hall DA, McCarthy K, Simone JF. Endometrial polyps, hyperplasia, and carcinoma in postmenopausal women: differentiation with endovaginal sonography. Radiology. 1994;191:755–8.\nDetti L, Christiansen ME, Peregrin-Alvarez I. Endometrial abnormalities: correlation between different diagnostic modalities. J Ultrasound Med 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15880. Online ahead of print.\nClevenger-Hoeft M, Syrop CH, Stovall DW, Van Voorhis BJ. Sonohysterography in premenopausal women with and without abnormal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:516–20.\nMunro MG, Critchley HO, Broder MS, Fraser IS. The FIGO Classification system (“PALM-COEIN”) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in non-gravid women in the reproductive years, including guidelines for clinical investigation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113:3–13.\nMol BW, Collins JA, Burrows EA, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in predicting fertility outcome. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1237–42.\nLuciano DE, Exacoustos C, Luciano AA. Contrast ultrasonography for tubal patency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:994–8.\nMaheux-Lacroix S, Boutin A, Moore L, Bergeron ME, Bujold E, Laberge P, et al. Hysterosalpingosonography for diagnosing tubal occlusion in subfertile women: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:953–63.\nMitri FF, Andronikou AD, Perpinyal S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sonnendecker EW. A clinical comparison of sonopathic hydrotubation and hysterosapingography. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98:1031–6.\nSaunders RD, Shwayder JF, Nakajima ST. Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2171–9.\nEpstein E, Ramirez AM, Skoog L, Valentin L. Transvaginal sonography, saline contrast and hysteroscopy for the investigation of women with postmenopausal bleeding and endometrium greater than 5 mm. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18:157–62.\nEmanuel MH, Exalto N. First experiences with Hysterosalpingo-Foam Sonography (HyFoSy) for office tubal patency testing. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:114–7.\nRajesh H, Lim SL, Yu SL. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography: patient selection and perspectives. Int J Women's Health. 2017;9:23–32.\nHamed HO, Shahin AY, Elsamman AM. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography versus radiographic hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of tubal patency. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105:215–7.\nFenzl V. Effect of different ultrasound contrast materials and temperatures on patient comfort during intrauterine and tubal assessment for infertility. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:4143–5.\nExacoustos C, Zupi E, Carusotti C, Lanzi G, Marconi D, Arduini D. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography compared with hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic dye pertubation to evaluate tubal patency. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003;10:367–72.\nExacoustos C, DiGiovanni A, Szabolos B, Roeo V, Romanini ME, Luciano D, et al. Automated 3D-coded contrast HyCoSy: feasibility in office tubal patency testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;41:328–35.\nBeverley RM, Malik S, Collins RL, Jean K, Sanfilippo JS. Evaluation of tubal patency with a saline-air device: can we move back to the office? J Reprod Med. 2018;63:120–6.\nRobertshaw I, Sroga JM, Batcheller AE, Martinez AM, Winter TC, et al. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with a saline-air device is equivalent to hysterosalpingography only in the presence of tubal patency. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35:1215–22.\nEmanuel MH, Exalto N. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy): a new technique to visualize tubal patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;3:498–9.\nLudwin I, Ludwin A, Wiechec M, Nocun A, Banas T, Basta P, et al. Accuracy of hysterosalpingo-foam sonography in comparison to hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with air/saline and to laparoscopy with dye. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:758–69.\nLindborg L, Thornburn J, Gergh C, Strandell A. Influence of HyCoSy on spontaneous pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1075–9.\nEvers JL, Land JA, Mol BW. Evidence-based medicine for diagnostic questions. Semin Reprod Med. 2003;21:9–15.\nDessole S, Meloni GB, Capobianco G, Manzoni MA, Ambrosini G, Canalis GC. A second hysterosalpingography reduces the use of selective technique for treatment of a proximal tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1037–9.\nDreyer K, van Rijswijk J, Mijatovic V, Goddijn M, Verhoeve HR, van Rooij IAJ, et al. Oil-based or water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2043–52.\nHurd WW, Wyckoff ET, Reynolds DB, Amesse LS, Gruber JS, Horowitz GM. Patient rotation and resolution of unilateral cornual obstruction during HSG. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:1275–8.\nRoest I, van Welie N, Mijatovic V, Dreyer K, Bongers M, Koks C, et al. Complications after hysterosalpingography with oil- or water-based contrast: results of a nationwide survey. Human Reprod Open. 2020;2020(1):hoz045.\nAyinda G, Kennedy S, Barlow D, Chamberlain P. A comparison of patient tolerance of HyCoSy with Echovist-200 and X-ray HSG for outpatient investigation of infertile females. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996;7:201–4.\nCarrascosa P, Capunay C, Vallejos J, Carpio J, Baronio M, Papier S. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional imaging of uterus and fallopian tubes in female infertility. Fertil Steril. 2016, 105:1403–1420.e7.\nMerritt BA, Behr SC, Khati NJ. Imaging of infertility, part 1: hysterosalpingograms to magnetic resonance imaging. Radiol Clin N Am. 2020;58:215–25.\nMohd Nor H, Jayapragasam K, Abdullah B. Diagnostic image quality of hysterosalpingography: ionic versus non ionic water soluble iodinated contrast media. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2009;5:e29.\nNoorhasan D, Heard MJ. Gadolinium radiologic contrast is a useful alternative for hysterosalpingogram in patients with iodine allergy. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1744.\nACR practice guideline for the performance of hysterosalpingography 2011. http://www.acr.org/~/media/B96D79998651431A8BD263017DE707A5.pdf\nHunt RB, Siegler AM. Hysterosalpingography: techniques & interpretation. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1990.\nPittaway ED, Winfield AC, Maxson W, Daniell J, Herberg C, Wentz AC. Prevention of acute pelvic inflammatory disease after hysterosalpingography: efficacy of acute pelvic inflammatory disease after hysterosalpingography: efficacy of doxycycline prophylaxis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;137:623–6.\nSoules MR, Mack LA. Imaging of the reproductive tract in infertile women: HSG, ultrasonography and MRI. In: Keye WR, Chang RJ, Rebar RW, Soules MR, editors. Infertility evaluation and treatment. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2005. p. 300–29.\nFife KA, Wilson DJ, Lewis CA. Entrance surface and ovarian doses in hysterosalpingography. Br J Radiol. 1994;67:860–3.\nLiang G, Zhu Q, He X, Wang X, Jiang L, Zhu C, et al. Effects of oil-soluble versus water-soluble contrast media at hysterosalpingography on pregnancy outcomes in women with a low risk of tubal disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/10/e039166. Accessed 20 June 2021.\nGibbons W, Buttram VC, Jan Behrman S, Jones H, Rock J. The American fertility society classifications 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.\nGrimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio SA, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2032–44.\nChan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:761–17.\nTomaževic T, Ban-Frangež H, Virant-Klun I, Verdenik I, Požlep B, Vrtačnik-Bokal E. Septate, subseptate and arcuate uterus decrease pregnancy and live birth rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:700–5.\nPractice Committee of The American Society for Reporductive Medicine. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:530–40.\nBazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopin J, Antione JH, et al. Ultrasounography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427–33.\nBordonné C, Puntonet J, Maitrot-Mantelet L, Bourdon M, Marcellin L, Dion E, et al. Imaging for evaluation of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2021;73:290–303.\nRees CO, Nederend J, Mischi M, van Vliet HAAM, Schoot BC. Objective measures of adenomyosis on MRI and their diagnostic accuracy-a systematic review & meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14139. Online ahead of print.\nLiu L, Li W, Leonardi M, Condous G, Da Silva Costa F, Mol BW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis and review of sonographic diagnostic criteria. J Ultrasound Med 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15635. Online ahead of print.\nCelli V, Ciulla S, Dolciami M, Satta S, Ercolani G, Porpora MG, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in endometriosis-associated pain . Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.21.04782-1. Online ahead of print.\nGerges B, Li W, Leonardi M, Mol BW, Condous G. Meta-analysis and systematic review to determine the optimal imaging modality for the detection of rectosigmoid deep endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23148. Online ahead of print.\nSaleh M, Bhosale P, Menias CO, Ramalingam P, Jensen C, Iyer R, et al. Ovarian teratomas: clinical features, imaging findings and management. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46:2293–307.\nChen MM, Coakley FV, Kaimal A, Laros RK Jr. Guidelines for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging use during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:333–40.\nKim MY, Rha SE, Oh SN, Jung SE, Lee YJ, Kim YS, et al. MR imaging findings of hydrosalpinx: a comprehensive review. Radiographics. 2009;29:495–507.\nKhatami SM, Mahmoodian M, Zare E, Pashang M. Safety of older generations of gadolinium in mild to moderate renal failure. Ren Fail. 2012;34:176–80.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nEditor information\nEditors and Affiliations\nRights and permissions\nCopyright information\n© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG\nAbout this chapter\nCite this chapter\nDetti, L. (2022). Reproductive Imaging. In: Falcone, T., Hurd, W.W. (eds) Clinical Reproductive Medicine and Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99596-6_5\nDownload citation\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99596-6_5\nPublished:\nPublisher Name: Springer, Cham\nPrint ISBN: 978-3-030-99595-9\nOnline ISBN: 978-3-030-99596-6\neBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}