Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of Hysterosalpingography (HSG) and Sono-HSG

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intra Uterine Adhesions

Abstract

Hysterosalpingography (HSG) has become an important initial investigation in patients who present with infertility or other endometrial/tubal problems. This chapter predominantly deals with HSG as the initial screening procedure for an intrauterine adhesion or Asherman’s workup with emphasis on procedural details and image interpretation. The correct procedural technique and image interpretation of HSG play an important role in efficient patient management. It also briefly addresses the ultrasound extension of HSG–sono HSG and its advantages over HSG.

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

Access this chapter

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 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Simpson WL Jr, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. Radio Graphics. 2006;26:419–31.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Krysiewicz S. Infertility in women: diagnostic evaluation with hysterosalpingography and other imaging techniques. AJR. 1992;159:253–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thurmond AS. Hysterosalpingography: imaging and intervention—RSNA categorical course in genitourinary radiology. Chicago: Radiological Society of North America; 1994. p. 221–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Úbeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, Abuin RA. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and non-pathologic findings. AJR. 2001;177:131–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghonge NP, et al. Hystero-salpingography: an obituary or a new beginning …? IJRI. 2008;18(2):175–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. ACR practice parameters for performance of Hysterosalpingography. Revised 2017 (Resolution 8). https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/HSG.pdf?la=en

  7. Lindheim SR, Sprague C, Winter TC III. Hysterosalpingography and sonohysterography: lessons in technique. AJR. 2006;186:24–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cengiz M, Kafali H, Artuc H, Baysal Z. Opioid analgesia for hysterosalpingography: controlled double-blind prospective trial with remifentanil and placebo. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2006;62(3):168–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Liberty G, Gal M, Halevy-Shalem T, Michaelson-Cohen R, Galoyan N, Hyman J, Eldar-Geva T, Vatashsky E, Margalioth E. Lidocaine–Prilocaine (EMLA) cream as analgesia for hysterosalpingography: a prospective, randomized, controlled, double blinded study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(5):1335–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karasick S. Hysterosalpingography. Urol Radiol. 1991;13:67–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rasmussen F, Lindequist S, Larsen C, Justessen F. Therapeutic effect of hysterosalpingography: oil- versus water-soluble contrast media—a randomized prospective study. Radiology. 1991;179:75–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Alper MM, Garner PR, Spence JEH, Quarrington AM. Pregnancy rates after hysterosalpingography with oil- and water-soluble contrast media. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;68:6–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dreyer K, Rijswijk JV, Mijatovic V, Goddijn M, Verhoeve H, Rooij IA, et al. Oil-based or water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2043–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Grammatikakis J, Theocharopoulos N, Gourtsoyiannis N. Radiogenic risks from hysterosalpingography. EurRadiol. 2003 Jul;13(7):1522–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. General Radiation Safety; Standard guidelines. www.imagewisely.org.

  16. Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules 2004. AERB guidelines. https://aerb.gov.in/images/PDF/DiagnosticRadiology/e-LORA-Diagnostic-Radiology-Guidelines.pdf.

  17. 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. 1988;49(6):944–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A. Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics. 2012;32:E233–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Winfield AC, Pittaway D, Maxson W, Daniell J, Wentz AC. Apparent cornual occlusion in hysterosalpingography: reversal by glucagon. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982;139:525–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Karasick S, Goldfarb AF. Peritubal adhesions in infertile women: diagnosis with hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;152(4):777–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu D-D, Niu Z-H, Zhang A-J, Guy R-H, Feng UN. An impact of suspected peritubal adhesions by hysterosalpingography on outcomes of intrauterine insemination. J Reprod Contracept. 2013;24(3):173–80.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Swart P, Mol BWJ, van der Veen F, van Beurden M, Redekop WK, Bossuyt PMM. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghonge NP, Ghonge Sanchita D. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of pelvic peritoneal adhesions: What radiologists need to know? Ind J Radiol Imag. 2014;24:149–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Essure home page. www.Essure.com. Accessed 18 Oct 2004.

  25. Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, Abuin RA. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathological findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):131–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thurmond AS, Machan LS, Maubon AJ, Rouanet J-P, Hovsepian DM, Van Moore A, Zagoria RJ, Dickey KW, Bass JC. A review of selective salpingography and fallopian tube catheterization. Radiographics. 2000;20:1759–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Anil G, Tay KH, Loh SF, Yong TT, Ong CL, Tan BS. Fluoroscopy-guided, transcervical, selective salpingography and fallopian tube recanalisation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(8):746–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sulak PJ, Letterie GS, Coddington CC, Hayslip CC, Woodward JE, Klein TA. Histology of proximal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril. 1987;48:437–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Honore´ GM, AEC H, Schenken RS. Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage. Fertil Steril. 1999;71:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Maheux-Lacroix S, Boutin A, Moore L, Bergeron M-E, Bujold E, Laberge P, Lemyre M, Dodin S. Hysterosalpingosonography for diagnosing tubal occlusion in sub fertile women: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):953–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Acholonu UC, Silberzweig J, Stein DE, Keltz M. Hysterosalpingography versus sonohysterography for intrauterine abnormalities. JSLS. 2011;15(4):471–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. AIUM 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.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yang T, Pandya A, Marcal L, Bude RO, Platt JF, Bedi DG, Elsayes KM. Sonohysterography: principles, technique and role in diagnosis of endometrial pathology. World J Radiol. 2013;5(3):81–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Saunders RD, Shwayder JM, Nakajima ST. Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2171–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Winter L, Glücker T, Steimann S, Fröhlich JM, Steinbrich W, Geyter CD, Pegios W. Feasibility of dynamic MR hysterosalpingography for the diagnostic work-up of infertile women. Acta Radiol. 2010;51(6):693–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sadowski EA, Ochsner JE, Riherd JM, Korosec FR, Agrawal G, Pritts EA, Kliewer MA. MR hysterosalpingography with an angiographic time-resolved 3D pulse sequence: assessment of tubal patency. AJR. 2008;191:1381–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Carrascosa PM, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, Martín López EB, Baronio M, Carrascosa JM. Virtual hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30:643–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hasan DI, Mohammad FF, Shazely S. Utility of 128-multislice CT virtual HSG in assessment of female infertility. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2016;47:1743–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fernández JM, Vañó E, Guibelalde E. Patient doses in hysterosalpingography. Br J Radiol. 1996;69(824):751–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Huda W, Vance A. Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(2):540–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Collins JA. Diagnostic assessment of the infertile female partner. Curr Probl Obstet Gynecol Fertil. 1988;11:6–42.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Opsahl MS, Miller B, Klein TA. The predictive value of hysterosalpingography for tubal and peritoneal infertility factors. Fertil Steril. 1993;60:444–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. NICE Clinical Guideline February 2013. 2nd edition; 2013 National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, New Delhi, India

    Nitin P. Ghonge

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Apollo Hospital, Noida, India

    Sanchita Dube Ghonge

  3. Medanta Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medanta the Medicity Hospital, Delhi, India

    Alka Ashmita Singhal

Authors
  1. Nitin P. Ghonge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanchita Dube Ghonge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alka Ashmita Singhal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Gynae Endoscopy Unit, Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute (PSRI) Hospital, New delhi, Delhi, India

    Rahul Manchanda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ghonge, N.P., Ghonge, S.D., Singhal, A.A. (2021). Role of Hysterosalpingography (HSG) and Sono-HSG. In: Manchanda, R. (eds) Intra Uterine Adhesions. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4145-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4145-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-33-4144-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-33-4145-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation