Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Volume 38, Issue 5 , Pages 199-205 , September 2009

Hysterosalpingography: Technique and Applications

  • Athanasios Chalazonitis, MD, PhD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, General Hospital of Athens Hippocratio, Athens, Greece
    • ,
  • Ioanna Tzovara, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, IASO General Hospital, Athens, Greece
    • ,
  • Fotios Laspas, MD, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Elpis General Hospital, Athens, Greece
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Fotios Laspas, MD, MSc, Thisseos 29, 15234 Halandri, Athens, Greece
    • ,
  • Petros Porfyridis, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, General Hospital of Athens Hippocratio, Athens, Greece
    • ,
  • Nikos Ptohis, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, General Hospital of Athens Hippocratio, Athens, Greece
    • ,
  • Georgios Tsimitselis, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Larissa University Hospital, Larissa, Greece

References 

  1. Baramki TA. Hysterosalpingography. Mod Trends. 2005;83:1595
  2. Schwabe MG, Shapiro SS, Haning RV. Hysterosalpingography with oil contrast medium enhances fertility in patients with infertility of unknown etiology. Fertil Steril. 1983;40:604–606
  3. Livsey R. Hysterosalpingography. Australas Radiol. 2001;45:98–99
  4. Simpson W, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: A reemerging study. Radiographics. 2006;26:419–431
  5. Eng CW, Tang PH, Ong CL. Hysterosalpingography: Current applications. Singapore Med J. 2007;48:368–373
  6. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for the performance of hysterosalpingography. In: ACR Standards. Reston, VA: ACR; 2001;p. 183–186
  7. Soares SR, Reis MMBB, Camargos AF. Diagnostic accuracy of soundhysterosalpingography, transvaginal sonography and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity disorders. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:406–411
  8. Lees WR, Highman SH. Gynecological imaging. In:  Sutton D editors. Textbook of Radiology and Imaging. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1988;p. 1235–1272
  9. Crofton M, Jenkins PRJ. Hysterosalpingography. In:  Sutton D editors. Textbook of Radiology and Imaging. 7th edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2003;p. 1085–1086
  10. Dhaliwal LK, Gupta UR, Aggarwall N. Is hysterosalpingography an important tool in modern gynecological practice?. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 1999;44:212–215
  11. Meschan I. Analysis of Roentgen signs. In: Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol 3. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1983;p. 1896–1907
  12. Thurmond AS, Jones MK, Cohen DL, et al. Procedures for diagnosis and treatment of infertility. In: Gynecologic, Obstetric and Breast Radiology. Cambridge: Blackwell Science; 1996;p. 114-34
  13. Steiner AZ, Meyer WR, Clark RL, et al. Oil-soluble contrast during hysterosalpingography in women with proven tubal potency. Obstec Gynecol. 2003;101:109–113
  14. Ramsuen F, Lindequist S, Larsen C, et al. Therapeutic effects of hysterosalpingography: oil- versus water-soluble contrast media—A randomized prospective study. Radiology. 1991;179:75–78
  15. Spring DB, Barkan HE, Pruyn SC. Potential therapeutic effects of contrast materials in hysterosalpingography: A prospective randomised clinical trial. Radiology. 2000;214:53–57
  16. Chalazonitis AN, Tzovara J, Tsimitselis G. Hysterosalpingography. A Pictorial Review. From: 91th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Feb 10-12 2005;Chicago, IL
  17. Measday B. An analysis of the complications of hysterosalpingography. J Obstet Gynecol Br Emp. 1960;67:663
  18. Siegler AM. Dangers of hysterosalpingography. Obstet Gynecol Surg. 1967;22:284
  19. Dahnert W. Obstetric and gynaecological disorders. Radiology Review Manual. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996;763-4
  20. Trolano RM, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: Imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233:19–34
  21. Stampe Sorensen S. Estimated prevalence of mullerian duct anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;67:441–445
  22. Stray-Pedersen B, Stray-Pedersen S. Etiologic factors and subsequent reproductive performance in 195 couples with a prior history of habitual abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;148:140–146
  23. Raga F, Bauset C, Remohl J, et al. Reproductive impact of congenital mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2277–2281
  24. Golan A, Lnger R, Bukovsky I, et al. Congenital anomalies of the mullerian system. Fertil Steril. 1989;51:747–755
  25. Heinonen PK, Saarikoski S, Psysynen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies: An evaluation of 182 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1983;61:157–162
  26. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tube obstruction, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:944–955
  27. Chavhan GB, Hira P, Rathod K, et al. Female genital tuberculosis: Hysterosalpingographic appearances. BJR. 2004;77:164–169

PII: S0363-0188(08)00020-0

doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2008.02.003

Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Volume 38, Issue 5 , Pages 199-205 , September 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution