Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 274-279

  Braun, Petra ^a   Grau, Francisco Vercher ^a   Pons, Raúl Mut ^a   Enguix, Daniel Perez ^a  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO LA FE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Congenital uterine anomalies; Hysterosalpingography; M llerian duct anomalies

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIES; DIAGNOSIS; DISEASES; MEDICAL IMAGING; PATIENT TREATMENT; ULTRASONICS;

HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; INFERTILITY; MALFORMATIONS; STERILITY;

BIOLOGICAL ORGANS;

ADULT; ARCUATE UTERUS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; HYSTEROSCOPY; INFERTILITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MUELLERIAN DUCT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SUBSEPTATE UTERUS; UTERUS BICORNIS BICOLLIS; UTERUS BICORNIS UNICOLLIS; UTERUS MALFORMATION; UTERUS SEPTUS; UTERUS UNICORNIS;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERUS;

EID: 12444257486     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Nahum G.G. Uterine anomalies. How common are they, and what is their distribution among subtypes? J. Reprod. Med. 43(10):1998;877-887
2. Ashton D., Amin H.K., Richart R.M., Neuwirth R.S. The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet. Gynecol. 72(1):1988;28-30
3. Grimbizis G.F., Camus M., Tarlatzis B.C., Bontis J.N., Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum. Reprod. Update. 7(2):2001;161-174
4. Simon C., Martinez L., Pardo F., Tortajada M., Pellicer A. Müllerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil. Steril. 56(6):1991;1192-1193
5. Raga F., Bauset C., Remohi J., Bonilla-Musoles F., Simon C., Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital müllerian anomalies. Hum. Reprod. 12(10):1997;2277-2281
6. Zanetti E., Ferrari L.R., Rossi G. Classification and radiographic features of uterine malformations: hysterosalpingographyic study. Br. J. Radiol. 51(603):1978;161-170
7. Byrne J., Nussbaum-Blask A., Taylor W.S., et al. Prevalence of müllerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am. J. Med. Genet. 94(1):2000;9-12
8. Jurkovic D., Gruboeck K., Tailor N., Nicolaides K.H. Ultrasound screening for congenital uterine anomalies. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 104(11):1997;1320- 1321
9. Makino T., Hara T., Oka C., et al. Survey of 1120 Japanese women with a history of recurrent spontaneous abortions. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 44(2):1992a;123-130
10. Kovacevic M., Lusic N., Vukic R. Congenital uterine anomalies in pregnancy. Jugosl. Ginekol. Perinatol. 30(5/6):1990;117-119
11. Syed I, Hussain H, Weadock W, Ellis J. Müllerian duct abnormalities, University of Michigan Medical Center. 2002, Emedicine.
12. Sadler TW. Langman embriologia medica con orientación clínica, Panamericana Editorial Medica S.A. 2001.
13. Salim R., Regan I., Woelfer B., Backos M., Jurkovic D. A comparative study of the morphology of congenital uterine anomalies in women with and without a history of recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum. Reprod. 18(1):2003;162-166
14. Acien P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum. Reprod. 8(1):1993;122-126
15. Woelfer B., Salim R., Banerjee S., Elson J., Regan L., Jurkovic D. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet. Gynecol. 98(6):2001;1099-1103
16. Golan A., Langer R., Wexler S., Segev E., Niv D., David M. Cervical cerclage - its role in the pregnant anomalous uterus. Int. J. Fertil. 35(3):1990;164-170
17. Homer H.A., Li T.C., Cooke I.D. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil. Steril. 73(1):2000;1-14
18. Burchell R.C., Creed F., Rasoulpour M., Whitcomb M. Vascular anatomy of the human uterus and pregnancy wastage. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 85:1978;698-706
19. Nakada K., Makino T., Tabuchi S., Iizuka R. Analysis of congenital uterine anomalies in habitual abortions, evaluation of metroplasty. Jpn. J. Fertil. Steril. 34:1989;842-847
20. Dabirashrafi H., Bahadori M., Mohammad K., et al. Septate uterus: new idea on the histologic features of the septum in this abnormal uterus. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 171:1995;105-107
21. Makino T., Umeuchi M., Nakada K., Nozawa S., Iizuka R. Incidence of congenital uterine anomalies in repeated reproductive wastage and prognosis for pregnancy after metroplasty. Int. J. Fertil. 37(3):1992;167-170
22. Wu M.H., Hsu C.C., Huang K.E. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 25(9):1997;487-492
23. Reuter K.L., Daly D.C., Cohen S.M. Septate versus bicornuate uteri: errors in imaging diagnosis. Radiology. 172(3):1989;749-752
24. Pellerito J.S., McCarthy S.M., Doyle M.B., Glickman M.G., DeCherney A.H. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 183(3):1992;795-800