Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-pm9fr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-29T23:13:46.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Sonographic Assessment of Fallopian Tubes and Tubal Pathologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2020

Kanna Jayaprakasan ,
Lukasz Polanski  and
Kamal Ojha
By
Sonal Panchal  and
Chaitanya Nagori
Kanna Jayaprakasan
Affiliation:
Department of Maternity and Gynaecology, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby
Lukasz Polanski
Affiliation:
Assisted Conception Unit, Guy’s Hospital, London
Kamal Ojha
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St George's University Hospital, London
Get access

Summary

While the uterus, cervix and ovaries can be well assessed by transvaginal ultrasound, normal fallopian tubes are not visible on ultrasound. Therefore, evaluation of the fallopian tubes needs special consideration. Tubal disease accounts for a significant proportion of female infertility and pelvic pain . The fallopian tubes may be damaged, most commonly due to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), but endometriosis, previous pelvic surgery, fibroids, and pelvic tuberculosis may also be seen as frequent causes for tubal damage . Prior uterine surgeries like surgical or medical termination of pregnancy and myomectomy may predispose to subclinical inflammation or infection leading to tubal damage. Tubal patency may also be affected due to polyps, myomas or salpingitis isthmica nodosa, though the latter is not very commonly seen and not very confidently diagnosed on ultrasound.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Gynaecological Ultrasound Scanning
Tips and Tricks
 , pp. 127 - 144
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Serafini, P, Batzofin, J. Diagnosis of female infertility: a comprehensive approach. J Reprod Med 1989;34(1):29–40.Google Scholar
Dun, EC, Nezhat, CH. Tubal factor infertility: diagnosis and management in the era of assisted reproductive technology. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2012;39(4):551–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patil, M. Assessing tubal damage. J Hum Reprod Sci 2009;2(1):2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordts, S, Campo, R, Rombauts, , Brosens, I. Endoscopic visualization of the process of fimbrial ovum retrieval in the human. Hum Reprod 1998;13(6):1425–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, N, Vandekerckhove, P, Watson, A, et al. Tubal flushing for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 3:CD003718.Google Scholar
Belisle, S, Collins, JA, Burrows, EA, Willan, AR. The value of laparoscopy among infertile women with tubal patency. J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Can 1996;18:326–36.Google Scholar
Watrelot, A, Dreyfus, JM, Andine, JP. Evaluation of the performance of fertiloscopy in 160 consecutive infertile patients with no obvious pathology. Hum Reprod 1999;14:707–11.Google Scholar
Nanini, R, Chelo, E, Branconi, F, et al. Dynamic echohysteroscopy: a new diagnostic technique in the study of female infertility. Acta Eur Fertil 1981;12(2):165–71.Google Scholar
Richman, TS, Visconi, GN, deChurney, A, et al. Fallopian tubal patency assessed by ultrasound fluid injection: work in progress. Radiology 1984;152(2):507–10.Google Scholar
Randolph, JR, Ying, YK, Maier, DB, et al. Comparison of real time ultrasonography, hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy/hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine abnormalities and tubal patency. Fertil Steril 1986;46(5):828–32.Google Scholar
Tufekci, EC, Girit, S, Bayirli, MD, et al. Evaluation of tubal patency by transvaginal sonosalpingography. Fertil Steril 1992;57:336–40.Google Scholar
Deichert, U, Schlief, R, van de Sandt, M, et al. Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography(Hy-Co-Sy) compared with conventional tubal diagnostics. Hum Reprod 1989;4(4):418–24.Google Scholar
Dessole, S, Farina, M, Rubattu, G, et al. Side effects and complications of sonohysterosalpingography. Fertil Steril 2003;8(3):620–4.Google Scholar
de Kroon, CD, de Bock, GH, Dieben, SW, Jansen, FW. Saline contrast hysterosonography in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2003;110(10):938–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, J, Peters, AJ, Coulam, CB. Colour Doppler ultrasonography assessment of tubal patency: a comparison study with traditional techniques. Fertil Steril 1992;58(5):897–900.Google Scholar
Kupesic, S, Kurjak, A. Gynecological vaginal sonographic interventional procedures: what does colour add? Gynecol Perinatol 1994;3:57–60.Google Scholar
Deichert, U, Schlief, R, van de Sandt, M, et al. Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography for the assessment of tubal patency with gray scale imaging and additional use of pulsed wave Doppler. Fertil Steril 1992;57(1):62–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deichert, U, van de Sandt, M. Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography(Hy-Co-Sy). The assessment of tubal patency and uterine abnormalities by contrast enhanced sonography. Adv Echo-Contrast 1993;2:55–8Google Scholar
Kleinkauf-Houcken, A, Huneke, B, Lindner, Ch, Braendle, W. Combining B mode ultrasound with pulsed wave Doppler for assessment of tubal patency. Hum Reprod 1997;12(11):2457–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, AJ, Coulam, CB. Hysterosalpingography with colour Doppler sonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;164(6 Pt 1):1530–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeanty, P, Besnard, S, Arnold, A, et al. Air-contrast sonohysterography as a first step assessment of tubal patency. J Ultrasound Med 2000;19(8):519–27.Google Scholar
Sankpal, RS, Confino, E, Matzel, A, Cohen, LS. Investigation of the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes using three-dimensional saline sonohysterosalpingography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001;73(2):125–9.Google Scholar
Kiyokawa, K, Masuda, H, Fuyuki, T, et al. Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (3D-HyCoSy) as an outpatient procedure to assess infertile women: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16(7):648–54.Google Scholar
Davison, GB, Leeton, J. A case of female fertility investigated by contrast-enhanced echo-gynecography. J Clin Ultrasound 1988;16(1):44–7.Google Scholar
Bonilla-Musoles, F, Simon, C, Sampaio, M, et al. An assessment of hysterosalpingosonography as a diagnostic tool for uterine cavity defects and tubal patency. J Clin Ultrasound 1992;20(3):175–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prefumo, F, Serafini, G, Martinoli, C, et al. The sonographic evaluation of tubal patency with stimulated acoustic emission imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;20(4):386–9.Google Scholar
Emanuel, MH, Exalto, N. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy): a new technique to visualize tubal patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37(4):498–9.Google Scholar
Emanuel, MH, van Vliet, M, Weber, M, Exalto, N. First experiences with hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) for office tubal patency testing. Hum Reprod 2012;27(1):114–17.Google Scholar
Boudghene, FP, Bazot, M, Robert, Y, et al. Assessment of fallopian tube patency by HyCoSy: comparison of a positive contrast agent with saline solution. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(5):525–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Schoubroeck, D, Van den Bosch, T, Meuleman, C, et al. The use of a new gel foam for the evaluation of tubal patency. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013;75(3):152–6.Google Scholar
Campbell, S, Bourne, TH, Tan, SL, Collins, WP. Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy) and its future role within the investigation of infertility in Europe. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4(3):245–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanawattanachaeron, S, Suwajanakorn, S, Uerpairojkit, B, Boonkasemsamti, W, Virutamasen, P. Transvaginal hystero-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) compared with chromolaparoscopy. J Obstet Gynecol Res 2000;26(1):71–5.Google Scholar
Lucaino, DE, Exacoustos, C, Johns, DA, et al. Transabdominal saline contrast sonohysterography: can it replace hysterosalpingography in low resource countries? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204(1):79.el–5.Google Scholar
Korell, M, Seehaus, D, Strowitzki, T, Hepp, H. Radiologic versus ultrasound fallopian tube imaging: painfulness of the examination and diagnostic reliability of hysterosalpingography and hysterosalpingo-contrast-ultrasonography with Echovist. Ultraschall Med 1997;18(1):3–7.Google Scholar
Lanzani, C, Savasi, V, Leone, FP, Ratti, M, Ferrazzi, E. Two-dimensional HyCoSy with contrast tuned imaging technology and a second-generation contrast media for the assessment of tubal patency in an infertility program. Fertil Steril 2009;92(3):1158–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exacoustos, C, Zupi, E, Carusotti, C, et al. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography compared with hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic dye perturbation to evaluate tubal patency. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2003;10(3):367–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balen, FG, Allen, CM, Gardener, JE, Siddle, NC, Lees, WR. 3-dimensional reconstruction of ultrasound images of the uterine cavity. Br J Radiology 1993;66,588–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Exacoustos, C, Di Giovanni, A, Szabolcs, B, et al. Automated sonographic tubal patency evaluation with three-dimensional coded contrast imaging (CCI) during hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34(5):609–12Google Scholar
Sladkevicius, P, Ojha, K, Campbell, S, et al. Three dimensional power Doppler imaging in the assessment of fallopian tube patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16(7):644–7.Google Scholar
Exacoustos, C, Di Giovanni, A, Szabolcs, B, et al. Automated three-dimensional coded contrast imaging hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography: feasibility in office tubal patency testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41(3):328–35.Google Scholar
Kupesic, S, Plavsic, MB. 2D and 3D hysterosalpingocontrast-sonography in the assessment of uterine cavity and tubal patency. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;133(1):64–9.Google Scholar
Zhou, L, Zhang, X, Chen, X, et al. Value of three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with SonoVue in the assessment of tubal patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40(1):93–8.Google Scholar
Chan, CC, Ng, EH, Tang, OS, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional hysteron-contrast-sonography and diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation in the assessment of tubal patency for the investigation of subfertility. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005;84(9):909–13.Google Scholar
Alcázar, JL, Martinez-Astorquiza Corral, T, Orozco, R, et al. Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography for the assessment of tubal patency in women with infertility: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2016;81(4):289–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boudghene, FP, Bazot, M, Robert, Y, et al. Assessment of fallopian tube patency by HyCoSy: comparison of a positive contrast agent with saline solution. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(5):525–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanahatoe, S, Hompes, PG, Lambalk, CB. Accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy in the infertility work-up before intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2003;79:361–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkman, AB, Mol, BW, van der Veen, F, Bossuyt, PM, Hogerzeil, HV. Can hysterosalpingocontrast-sonography replace hysterosalpingography in the assessment of tubal subfertility? Eur J Radiol 2000;35:44–8.Google Scholar
Volpi, E, De Grandis, T, Sismondi, P, et al. Transvaginal salpingo-sonography (TSSG) in the evaluation of tubal patency. Acta Eur Fertil 1991;22(6):325–8.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riska, A, Leminen, A, Pukkala, E. Sociodemographic determinants of incidence of primary fallopian tube carcinoma, Finland 1953–97. Int J Cancer 2003;104:643–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, A, Seraj, IM, Thrasher, T, Slater, J, Wagner, RJ. Fallopian tube carcinoma: a clinicopathological study of 17 cases. Gynecol Oncol 1989;33:351–5.Google Scholar
Kosary, C, Trimble, EL. Treatment and survival for women with fallopian tube carcinoma: a population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 2002;86:190–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×