Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.295095047

A systematic multimodality approach for diagnostic imaging of female infertility is described, and characteristic features of tubal, peritubal, uterine, cervical, and ovarian abnormalities are illustrated with hysterosalpingograms, hysterographic and pelvic US images, and pelvic MR images.

Imaging plays a key role in the diagnostic evaluation of women for infertility. The pelvic causes of female infertility are varied and range from tubal and peritubal abnormalities to uterine, cervical, and ovarian disorders. In most cases, the imaging work-up begins with hysterosalpingography to evaluate fallopian tube patency. Uterine filling defects and contour abnormalities may be discovered at hysterosalpingography but typically require further characterization with hysterographic or pelvic ultrasonography (US) or pelvic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Hysterographic US helps differentiate among uterine synechiae, endometrial polyps, and submucosal leiomyomas. Pelvic US and MR imaging help further differentiate among uterine leiomyomas, adenomyosis, and the various müllerian duct anomalies, with MR imaging being the most sensitive modality for detecting endometriosis. The presence of cervical disease may be inferred initially on the basis of difficulty or failure of cervical cannulation at hysterosalpingography. Ovarian abnormalities are usually detected at US. The appropriate selection of imaging modalities and accurate characterization of the various pelvic causes of infertility are essential because the imaging findings help direct subsequent patient care.

© RSNA, 2009

References

  • 1 Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher WD, Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23 2005;25:1–60.
  • 2 Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Chen M, Macaluso M; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States 2004. MMWR Surveill Summ 2007;56:1–22.
  • 3 Imaoka I, Wada A, Matsuo M, Yoshida M, Kitagaki H, Sugimura K. MR imaging of disorders associated with female infertility: use in diagnosis, treatment, and management. RadioGraphics 2003;23: 1401–1421.
  • 4 Simpson WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. RadioGraphics 2006; 26:419–431.
  • 5 Thurmond AS. Imaging of female infertility. Radiol Clin North Am 2003;41:757–767.
  • 6 Krysiewicz S. Infertility in women: diagnostic evaluation with hysterosalpingography and other imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159: 253–261.
  • 7 Eskenazi B, Warner ML. Epidemiology of endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1997;24: 235–238.
  • 8 Olive DL, Schwartz LB. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1759–1769.
  • 9 Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Mezzetti TP. Endometriosis: radiologic-pathologic correlation. RadioGraphics 2001;21:193–216.
  • 10 Friedman H, Vogelzang RL, Mendelson EB, Neiman HL, Cohen M. Endometriosis detection by US with laparoscopic correlation. Radiology 1985;157: 217–220.
  • 11 Zawin M, McCarthy S, Scoutt L, Comite F. Endometriosis: appearance and detection at MR imaging. Radiology 1989;171:693–696.
  • 12 Nishimura K, Togashi K, Itoh K, et al.. Endometrial cysts of the ovary: MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 162:315–318.
  • 13 Arrive L, Hricak H, Martin M. Pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging. Radiology 1989;171:687–692.
  • 14 Úbeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, Abuin RA. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:131–135.
  • 15 O’Neill MJ. Sonohysterography. Radiol Clin North Am 2003;41:781–797.
  • 16 Lev-Toaff AS, Toaff ME, Liu JB, Merton DA, Goldberg BB. Value of sonohysterography in the diagnosis and management of abnormal uterine bleeding. Radiology 1996;201:179–184.
  • 17 Nalaboff KM, Pellerito JS, Ben-Levi E. Imaging the endometrium: disease and normal variants. RadioGraphics 2001;21:1409–1424.
  • 18 Matalliotakis IM, Katsikis IK, Panidis DK. Adenomyosis: what is the impact on fertility? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2005;17:261–264.
  • 19 Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, Noe M, Kissler S, Leyendecker G. Adenomyosis in endometriosis—prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod 2005;20: 2309–2316.
  • 20 Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, et al.. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. RadioGraphics 1999;19(spec no):S147–S160.
  • 21 Atri M, Reinhold C, Mehio AR, Chapman WB, Bret PM. Adenomyosis: US features with histologic correlation in an in vitro study. Radiology 2000;215: 783–790.
  • 22 Tamai K, Togashi K, Ito T, Morisawa N, Fujiwara T, Koyama T. MR imaging findings of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathologic features and diagnostic pitfalls. RadioGraphics 2005;25:21–40.
  • 23 Salem S, Wilson SR. Gynecologic ultrasound. In: Rumack CMWilson SRCharboneau JW, eds. Diagnostic ultrasound. 3rd ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Mosby, 2005.
  • 24 Benson CB, Chow JS, Chang-Lee W, Hill JA, Doubilet PM. Outcome of pregnancies in women with uterine leiomyomas identified by sonography in the first trimester. J Clin Ultrasound 2001;29:261–264.
  • 25 Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004; 233:19–34.
  • 26 Golan A, Langer R, Bukovsky I, Caspi E. Congenital anomalies of the müllerian system. Fertil Steril 1989;51:747–755.
  • 27 Harger JH, Archer DF, Marchese SG, Muracca-Clemens M, Garver KL. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy losses and outcome of subsequent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1983;62:574–581.
  • 28 Buttram VC, Gibbons WE. Müllerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 1979;32:40–46.
  • 29 Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1992;183:795–800.
  • 30 Mueller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR, et al.. Müllerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:1294–1302.
  • 31 Speroff L, Glass RH, Kase NG. Development of the müllerian system. In: Mitchell C, ed. Clinical gynecologic endocrinology and infertility. 6th ed. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1998.
  • 32 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;49:944–955.
  • 33 Brody JM, Koelliker SL, Frishman GN. Unicornuate uterus: imaging appearance, associated anomalies, and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:1341–1347.
  • 34 Sarto GE, Simpson JL. Abnormalities of the Müllerian and Wolffian duct systems. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 1978;14:37–54.
  • 35 Patton PE, Novy MJ. Reproductive potential of the anomalous uterus. Semin Reprod Endocrinol 1988; 6:217–233.
  • 36 Homer HA, Li TC, Cooker ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1–14.
  • 37 Tulandi T, Arronet GH, McInnes RA. Arcuate and bicornuate uterine anomalies and infertility. Fertil Steril 1980;34:362–364.
  • 38 Herbst AL, Senekjian EK, Frey KW. Abortion and pregnancy loss among diethylstilbestrol-exposed women. Semin Endocrinol 1989;7:124–129.
  • 39 Kaufman RH, Adam E, Binder GL, Gerthoffer E. Upper genital tract changes and pregnancy outcome in offspring exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;137:299–308.
  • 40 Nagel TC, Malo JN. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in the diethylstilbestrol exposed uterus and similar non fusion anomalies: effect on subsequent obstetric performance. Fertil Steril 1993;59:502–506.
  • 41 Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Wertz JP, Cuénin C, Ritter J, Philippe E. Consequences and treatment of cervical stenoses after laser conization or loop electrosurcial excision [in French]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1997;26:64–70.
  • 42 Valle RF, Sankpal R, Marlow JL, Cohen L. Cervical stenosis: a challenging clinical entity. J Gynecol Surg 2002;18:129–143.
  • 43 Christianson MS, Barker MA, Lindheim SR. Overcoming the challenging cervix: techniques to access the uterine cavity. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008;12: 24–31.
  • 44 Suh-Burgmann EJ, Whall-Strojwas D, Chang Y, Hundley D, Goodman AK. Risk factors for cervical stenosis after loop electrocautery excision procedure. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:657–660.
  • 45 Ott DJ, Chen MYM. General diagnostic principles. In: Ott DJFayez JAZagoria RJ, eds. Hysterosalpingography: a text and atlas. 2nd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins, 1998.
  • 46 Azziz R, Carmina E, Dewailly D, et al.. The Androgen Excess and PCOS Society criteria for the polycystic ovary syndrome: the complete task force report. Fertil Steril 2009;91:456–488.
  • 47 Legro RS, Barnhart HX, Schlaff WD, et al.. Clomiphene, metformin, or both for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2007;356: 551–566.
  • 48 Pache TD, Wladimiroff JW, Hop WC, Fauser BC. How to discriminate between normal and polycystic ovaries: transvaginal US study. Radiology 1992;183: 421–423.
  • 49 Kimura I, Togashi K, Kawakami S, et al.. Polycystic ovaries: implications of diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 1996;201:549–552.

Article History

Received: Mar 5 2009
Revision received: Mar 23 2009
Revision received: May 2 2009
Accepted: May 8 2009
Published in print: Sept 2009