Advertisement

Advanced Imaging Techniques Used in the Infertile Female

  • Erica Boiman Johnstone
  • Jeffrey Dee Olpin
Chapter

Abstract

Radiologic imaging is a crucial part of the evaluation of women presenting with infertility. Imaging techniques that provide insight into causes and factors contributing to infertility include ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging. In this chapter, we discuss imaging technologies for disorders of the uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries which may impact fertility and pregnancy outcomes, with consideration of test sensitivity and specificity, cost, discomfort, utilization of contrast media, and ionizing radiation. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography is an efficient modality for multiple aspects of female reproductive anatomy and is advocated as a first-line test for most infertile women. The specific questions and concerns for each patient should be considered to select the most appropriate test or sequence of tests.

Keywords

Infertility Imaging Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography Hysterosalpingography Ultrasound Recurrent pregnancy loss Uterine anomalies Asherman syndrome Leiomyoma Hydrosalpinx Ovary 

References

  1. 1.
    Taylor HS. The role of HOX genes in the development and function of the female reproductive tract. Semin Reprod Med. 2000;18(1):81–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(4):371–82.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.10056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buttram VC Jr, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (An analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32(1):40–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The American Fertility Society. 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(6):944–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oppelt P, Renner SP, Brucker S, Strissel PL, Strick R, Oppelt PG, Doerr HG, Schott GE, Hucke J, Wallwiener D, Beckmann MW. The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex-associated Malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1493–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.05.036.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Acien P, Acien MI. The history of female genital tract malformation classifications and proposal of an updated system. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(5):693–705.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li TC, Tanos V, Brolmann H, Gianaroli L, Campo R. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2032–44.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det098.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freud A, Harlev A, Weintraub AY, Ohana E, Sheiner E. Reproductive outcomes following uterine septum resection. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(18):2141–4.  https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.981746.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):e44–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Lin BL, Aoki K, Maruyama T, Nakatsuka M, Ozawa N, Sugi T, Takeshita T, Nishida M. Does surgery improve live birth rates in patients with recurrent miscarriage caused by uterine anomalies? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;35(2):155–8.  https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2014.936839.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, Gordts S, Exacoustos C, Van Schoubroeck D, Bermejo C, Amso NN, Nargund G, Timmermann D, Athanasiadis A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li TC, Tanos V, Tarlatzis B, Farquharson R, Gianaroli L, Campo R. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0909-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groszmann YS, Benacerraf BR. Complete evaluation of anatomy and morphology of the infertile patient in a single visit; the modern infertility pelvic ultrasound examination. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1381–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bermejo C, Martinez-Ten P, Recio M, Ruiz-Lopez L, Diaz D, Illescas T. Three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging assessment of cervix and vagina in women with uterine malformations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(3):336–45.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robbins JB, Broadwell C, Chow LC, Parry JP, Sadowski EA. Mullerian duct anomalies: embryological development, classification, and MRI assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24771.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baird DD, Dunson DB, Hill MC, Cousins D, Schectman JM. High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(1):100–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Munro MG, Critchley HO, Broder MS, Fraser IS, FIGO Working Group on Menstrual Disorders. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113(1):3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.11.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Removal of myomas in asymptomatic patients to improve fertility and/or reduce miscarriage rate: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):416–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pritts EA, Parker WH, Olive DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):1215–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Styer AK, Jin S, Liu D, Wang B, Polotsky AJ, Christianson MS, Vitek W, Engmann L, Hansen K, Wild R, Legro RS, Coutifaris C, Alvero R, Robinson RD, Casson P, Christman GM, Christy A, Diamond MP, Eisenberg E, Zhang H, Santoro N, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Reproductive Medicine Network. Association of uterine fibroids and pregnancy outcomes after ovarian stimulation-intrauterine insemination for unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(3):756–762.e3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.12.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Soares SR, Barbosa dos Reis MM, Camargos AF. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity diseases. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(2):406–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nass Duce M, Oz U, Ozer C, Yildiz A, Apaydin FD, Cil F. Diagnostic value of sonohysterography in the evaluation of submucosal fibroids and endometrial polyps. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;43(6):448–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwarzler P, Concin H, Bosch H, Berlinger A, Wohlgenannt K, Collins WP, Bourne TH. An evaluation of sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the assessment of intrauterine pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;11(5):337–42.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1998.11050337.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Testa AC, Di Legge A, Bonatti M, Manfredi R, Scambia G. Imaging techniques for evaluation of uterine myomas. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;34:37–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.11.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Dechoux S, Bonneau C, Morel A, Rouzier R, Carette MF, Darai E, Bazot M. How to differentiate benign from malignant myometrial tumours using MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2306–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2819-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jha RC, Zanello PA, Ascher SM, Rajan S. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of adenomyosis and fibroids of the uterus. Abdom Imaging. 2014;39(3):562–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0095-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yang Q, Zhang LH, Su J, Liu J. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiation of uterine adenomyosis and leiomyoma. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79(2):e47–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.03.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maheshwari A, Gurunath S, Fatima F, Bhattacharya S. Adenomyosis and subfertility: a systematic review of prevalence, diagnosis, treatment and fertility outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(4):374–92.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vercellini P, Consonni D, Dridi D, Bracco B, Frattaruolo MP, Somigliana E. Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):964–77.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Younes G, Tulandi T. Effects of adenomyosis on in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):483–90. e483.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al Jama FE. Management of adenomyosis in subfertile women and pregnancy outcome. Oman Med J. 2011;26(3):178–81.  https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2011.43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang PH, Fuh JL, Chao HT, Liu WM, Cheng MH, Chao KC. Is the surgical approach beneficial to subfertile women with symptomatic extensive adenomyosis? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009;35(3):495–502.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00951.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Park CW, Choi MH, Yang KM, Song IO. Pregnancy rate in women with adenomyosis undergoing fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles following gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2016;43(3):169–73.  https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2016.43.3.169.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Niu Z, Chen Q, Sun Y, Feng Y. Long-term pituitary downregulation before frozen embryo transfer could improve pregnancy outcomes in women with adenomyosis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(12):1026–30.  https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2013.824960.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dueholm M, Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(6):505–12.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e3282f1bf00.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meredith SM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(1):107.e1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.03.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stamatopoulos CP, Mikos T, Grimbizis GF, Dimitriadis AS, Efstratiou I, Stamatopoulos P, Tarlatzis BC. Value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of adenomyosis and myomas of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(5):620–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.06.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sillo-Seidl G. The analysis of the endometrium of 1,000 sterile women. Hormones. 1971;2(2):70–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee SC, Kaunitz AM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Rhatigan RM. The oncogenic potential of endometrial polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1197–205.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74864.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Perez-Medina T, Bajo-Arenas J, Salazar F, Redondo T, Sanfrutos L, Alvarez P, Engels V. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(6):1632–5.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh822.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Afifi K, Anand S, Nallapeta S, Gelbaya TA. Management of endometrial polyps in subfertile women: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;151(2):117–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.04.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of endometrial polyps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(1):3–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nieuwenhuis LL, Hermans FJ, Bij de Vaate AJM, Leeflang MM, Brolmann HA, Hehenkamp WJ, Mol BWJ, Clark TJ, Huirne JA. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011126.pub2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Asherman JG. Amenorrhoea traumatica (atretica). J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1948;55(1):23–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    March CM. Asherman’s syndrome. Semin Reprod Med. 2011;29:83–94. Epub 2011 Mar 24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hooker AB, Lemmers M, Thurkow AL, Heymans MW, Opmeer BC, Brolmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrauterine adhesions after miscarriage: prevalence, risk factors and long-term reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(2):262–78.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt045.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hanstede MM, van der Meij E, Goedemans L, Emanuel MH. Results of centralized Asherman surgery, 2003-2013. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1561–8.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Seshadri S, El-Toukhy T, Douiri A, Jayaprakasan K, Khalaf Y. Diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography in the evaluation of uterine cavity abnormalities prior to assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(2):262–74.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Roma Dalfo A, Ubeda B, Ubeda A, Monzon M, Rotger R, Ramos R, Palacio A. Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography in the detection of intrauterine abnormalities: a comparison with hysteroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(5):1405–9.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kim MJ, Lee Y, Lee C, Chun S, Kim A, Kim HY, Lee JY. Accuracy of three dimensional ultrasound and treatment outcomes of intrauterine adhesion in infertile women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;54(6):737–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2015.10.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Berker B, Sukur YE, Kahraman K, Atabekoglu CS, Sonmezer M, Ozmen B, Ates C. Impact of unilateral tubal blockage diagnosed by hysterosalpingography on the success rate of treatment with controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;34(2):127–30.  https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2013.853030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Johnson N, van Voorst S, Sowter MC, Strandell A, Mol BW. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD002125.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002125.pub3.
  52. 52.
    Sagoskin AW, Lessey BA, Mottla GL, Richter KS, Chetkowski RJ, Chang AS, Levy MJ, Stillman RJ. Salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of unilateral hydrosalpinx increases the potential for spontaneous pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(12):2634–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dessole 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(5):1037–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Risquez F, Confino E. Transcervical tubal cannulation, past, present, and future. Fertil Steril. 1993;60(2):211–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Woolcott R, Petchpud A, O'Donnell P, Stanger J. Differential impact on pregnancy rate of selective salpingography, tubal catheterization and wire-guide recanalization in the treatment of proximal fallopian tube obstruction. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(6):1423–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lazer T, Meltzer S, Saar-Ryss B, Liberty G, Rabinson Y, Friedler S. The place of selective hysterosalpingography and tubal canalization among sub-fertile patients diagnosed with proximal tubal occlusion. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293(5):1107–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3998-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ferraiolo A, Ferraro F, Remorgida V, Gorlero F, Capitanio GL, de Cecco L. Unexpected pregnancies after tubal recanalization failure with selective catheterization. Fertil Steril. 1995;63(2):299–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Maheux-Lacroix S, Boutin A, Moore L, Bergeron ME, Bujold E, Laberge P, Lemyre M, Dodin S. Hysterosalpingosonography for diagnosing tubal occlusion in subfertile women: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):953–63.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Alcazar JL, Martinez-Astorquiza Corral T, Orozco R, Dominguez-Piriz J, Juez L, Errasti T. Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography for the assessment of tubal patency in women with infertility: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2016;81(4):289–95.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000443955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    de Wit W, Gowrising CJ, Kuik DJ, Lens JW, Schats R. Only hydrosalpinges visible on ultrasound are associated with reduced implantation and pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(6):1696–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, Thorburn J. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: cumulative results after salpingectomy in a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(11):2403–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Socolov D, Boian I, Boiculese L, Tamba B, Anghelache-Lupascu I, Socolov R. Comparison of the pain experienced by infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingo contrast sonography or radiographic hysterosalpingography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;111(3):256–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.07.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dreyer K, Out R, Hompes PG, Mijatovic V. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography, a less painful procedure for tubal patency testing during fertility workup compared with (serial) hysterosalpingography: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):821–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lo Monte G, Capobianco G, Piva I, Caserta D, Dessole S, Marci R. Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy): let's make the point! Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(1):19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3465-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mutlu MF, Erdem M, Erdem A, Yildiz S, Mutlu I, Arisoy O, Oktem M. Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-Mullerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(5):657–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-9975-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Nelson SM, Fleming R, Gaudoin M, Choi B, Santo-Domingo K, Yao M. Antimullerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as prognostic indicators in a personalized prediction model of live birth. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(2):325–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.04.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Legro RS, Arslanian SA, Ehrmann DA, Hoeger KM, Murad MH, Pasquali R, Welt CK, Endocrine S. Diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(12):4565–92.  https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2013-2350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Dewailly D, Lujan ME, Carmina E, Cedars MI, Laven J, Norman RJ, Escobar-Morreale HF. Definition and significance of polycystic ovarian morphology: a task force report from the androgen excess and polycystic ovary syndrome society. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):334–52.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kwan I, Bhattacharya S, Kang A, Woolner A. Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(8):CD005289.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005289.pub3.
  70. 70.
    Zreik TG, Garcia-Velasco JA, Habboosh MS, Olive DL, Arici A. Prospective, randomized, crossover study to evaluate the benefit of human chorionic gonadotropin-timed versus urinary luteinizing hormone-timed intrauterine inseminations in clomiphene citrate-stimulated treatment cycles. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(6):1070–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lewis V, Queenan J Jr, Hoeger K, Stevens J, Guzick DS. Clomiphene citrate monitoring for intrauterine insemination timing: a randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):401–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.1331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Legendre G, Catala L, Moriniere C, Lacoeuille C, Boussion F, Sentilhes L, Descamps P. Relationship between ovarian cysts and infertility: what surgery and when? Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):608–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.01.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa AC, Guerriero S, Fischerova D, Lissoni AA, Van Holsbeke C, Fruscio R, Czekierdowski A, Jurkovic D, Savelli L, Vergote I, Bourne T, Van Huffel S, Valentin L. Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(2):226–34.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7636.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Van Hoorde K, Van Holsbeke C, Sayasneh A, Vergote I, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Van Calster B. A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129(2):377–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.01.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Redwine DB. Ovarian endometriosis: a marker for more extensive pelvic and intestinal disease. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(2):310–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kinkel K, Frei KA, Balleyguier C, Chapron C. Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(2):285–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2882-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PM, Farquhar C, Johnson N, Hull ML. Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD009591.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009591.pub2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kitajima M, Defrere S, Dolmans MM, Colette S, Squifflet J, Van Langendonckt A, Donnez J. Endometriomas as a possible cause of reduced ovarian reserve in women with endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(3):685–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.064.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Uncu G, Kasapoglu I, Ozerkan K, Seyhan A, Oral Yilmaztepe A, Ata B. Prospective assessment of the impact of endometriomas and their removal on ovarian reserve and determinants of the rate of decline in ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2140–5.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Benaglia L, Bermejo A, Somigliana E, Faulisi S, Ragni G, Fedele L, Garcia-Velasco JA. In vitro fertilization outcome in women with unoperated bilateral endometriomas. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(6):1714–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Benschop L, Farquhar C, van der Poel N, Heineman MJ. Interventions for women with endometrioma prior to assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (11):CD008571.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008571.pub2.
  82. 82.
    Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Hunt JL. Ovarian teratomas: tumor types and imaging characteristics. Radiographics. 2001;21(2):475–90.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.21.2.g01mr09475.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Chang HJ, Han SH, Lee JR, Jee BC, Lee BI, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of laparoscopic cystectomy on ovarian reserve: serial changes of serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):343–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Caspi B, Weissman A, Zalel Y, Barash A, Tulandi T, Shoham Z. Ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilization in women with mature cystic teratomas. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92(6):979–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hudelist G, Fritzer N, Staettner S, Tammaa A, Tinelli A, Sparic R, Keckstein J. Uterine sliding sign: a simple sonographic predictor for presence of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):692–5.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12431.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations