Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hysterosalpingography: an imaging Atlas with cross-sectional correlation

  • Pictorial Essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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):38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A (2012) Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics 32(6):E233–E250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):761–771

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):161–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 20:2309–2316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 19:1179–1197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 29:495–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1343–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–W658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 187:955–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2732–2735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors have no financial interest or other relationship with a commercial organization that may have an interest in the context of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 W. Grand Boulevard, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

    Karyn A. Ledbetter & Daniel T. Myers

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, William Beaumont Hospital, 3601 W. 13 Mile Road, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA

    Monisha Shetty

Authors
  1. Karyn A. Ledbetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monisha Shetty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel T. Myers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Karyn A. Ledbetter, Monisha Shetty or Daniel T. Myers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ledbetter, K.A., Shetty, M. & Myers, D.T. Hysterosalpingography: an imaging Atlas with cross-sectional correlation. Abdom Imaging 40, 1721–1732 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0284-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0284-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation