Feasibility of dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography for the diagnostic work-up of infertile women

References

• Hornstein MD, Schust D. Infertility. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Dähnert W. Radiology review manual. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor E, Gomel V. The uterus and fertility. Fertil Steril 2008;89:1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinhold C, Hricak H, Forstner R. Primary amenorrhea: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology 1997;203:383–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tello R, Tempany CM, Chai J, Ainslie M, Adams DF. MR hysterography using axial long TR imaging with three-dimensional projections of the uterus. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1997;21:117–23.
   Google Scholar
• Krysiewicz S. Infertility in women: diagnostic evaluation with hysterosalpingography and other imaging techniques. Am J Roentgenol 1992;159:253–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, Secaf E, Laros RK, Hill EC. Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 1990;176:715–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Giudici MN, Villa L. Magnetic resonance imaging of unicornuate uterus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1990;69:511–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fielding JR. MR imaging of the female pelvis. Radiol Clin North Am 2003;41:179–92.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman-Walsh CB, Fahrig R, Ganguly A, Rieke V, Daniel BL. A hybrid radiography/MRI system for combining hysterosalpingography and MRI in infertility patients: initial experience. Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:W157–160.
   Google Scholar
• Frye RE, Ascher SM, Thomasson D. MR hysterosalpingography: protocol development and refinement for simulating normal and abnormal fallopian tube patency – feasibility study with a phantom. Radiology 2000;214:107–12.
   Google Scholar
• 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;23:1401–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004;233:19–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiesner W, Kubik-Huch RA, Imthurn B, Marincek B. Mayer-(von)Rokitansky-Kuster syndrome. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax 1998;87:1257–9.
   Google Scholar
• Wiesner W, Ruehm SG, Bongartz G, Kaim A, Reese E, De Geyter C. Three-dimensional dynamic MR hysterosalpingography: a preliminary report. Eur Radiol 2001;11: 1439–44.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward PJ, Wagner BJ, Farley TE. MR imaging in the evaluation of female infertility. Radiographics 1993;13: 293–310.
   Google Scholar
• Zangos S, Kissler S, Mueller A. Uterine adenomyosis in infertile patients: MR imaging findings and clinical conclusions. Rofo 2004;176:1641–7.
   Google Scholar
• Unterweger M, De Geyter C, Frohlich JM, Bongartz G, Wiesner W. Three-dimensional dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography; a new, low invasive, radiation-free and less painful radiological approach to female infertility. Hum Reprod 2002;17:3138–41.
   Google Scholar
• De Geyter C, Steimann S, Frohlich JM. Selective visualization of the Fallopian tube with magnetic resonance imaging. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:593–7.
   Google Scholar
• Ahinko-Hakamaa K, Huhtala H, Tinkanen H. The validity of air and saline hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography in tubal patency investigation before insemination treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;132:83–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiyokawa K, Masuda H, Fuyuki T, Koseki M, Uchida N, Fukuda T, . Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (3D-HyCoSy) as an outpatient procedure to assess infertile women: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:648–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Grammatikakis J, Theocharopoulos N, Gourtsoyiannis N. Radiogenic risks from hysterosalpingography. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1522–8.
   Google Scholar
• Gregan AC, Peach D, McHugo JM. Patient dosimetry in hysterosalpingography: a comparative study. Br J Radiol 1998;71:1058–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kissler S, Wildt L, Schmiedehausen K, Kohl J, Mueller A, Rody A, . Predictive value of impaired uterine transport function assessed by negative hysterosalpingoscintigraphy (HSSG). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;113:204–8.
   Google Scholar
• Mol BW, Collins JA, Burrows EA, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in predicting fertility outcome. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1237–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashi M, Hoshimoto K, Ohkura T. Successful conception following Fallopian tube recanalization in infertile patients with a unilateral proximally occluded tube and a contralateral patent tube. Hum Reprod 2003;18:96–9.
   Google Scholar
• Lang EK, Dunaway HEJ. Efficacy of salpingography and transcervical recanalization in diagnosis, categorization, and treatment of fallopian tube obstruction. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2000;23:417–22.
   Google Scholar
• Papaioannou S, Afnan M, Girling AJ, Coomarasamy A, Ola B, Olufowobi O, . Long-term fertility prognosis following selective salpingography and tubal catheterization in women with proximal tubal blockage. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2325–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mol BW, Swart P, Bossuyt PM, van Beurden M, van der Veen F. Reproducibility of the interpretation of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1204–8.
   Google Scholar
• Radic V, Canic T, Valetic J, Duic Z. Advantages and disadvantages of hysterosonosalpingography in the assessment of the reproductive status of uterine cavity and fallopian tubes. Eur J Radiol 2005;53:268–73.
   Google Scholar
• Deichert U, Schlief R, van de Sandt M, Daume E. Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography for the assessment of tubal patency with gray scale imaging and additional use of pulsed wave Doppler. Fertil Steril 1992;57:62–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters AJ, Coulam CB. Hysterosalpingography with color Doppler ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;164: 1530–32; discussion 1532–34.
   Google Scholar
• Bazot M, Darai E. Sonography and MR imaging for the assessment of deep pelvic endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005;12:178–85; quiz 177, 186.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fatum M, Laufer N, Simon A. Investigation of the infertile couple: should diagnostic laparoscopy be performed after normal hysterosalpingography in treating infertility suspected to be of unknown origin? Hum Reprod 2002; 17:1–3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gleicher N, Confino E, Corfman R, Coulam C, DeCherney A, Haas G, . The multicentre transcervical balloon tuboplasty study: conclusions and comparison to alternative technologies. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1264–71.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitz-Rode T, Neulen J, Gunther RW. [Fluoroscopically guided fallopian tube recanalization with a simplified set of instruments.] Rofo 2004;176:1506–9 (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Weinreb JC, Barkoff ND, Megibow A, Demopoulos R. The value of MR imaging in distinguishing leiomyomas from other solid pelvic masses when sonography is indeterminate. Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:295–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zawin M, McCarthy S, Scoutt LM, Comite F. High-field MRI and US evaluation of the pelvis in women with leiomyomas. Magn Reson Imaging 1990;8:371–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dueholm M, Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19:505–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudiak CM, Turner DA, Patel SK, Archie JT, Silver B, Norusis M. Uterine leiomyomas in the infertile patient: preoperative localization with MR imaging versus US and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1988;167:627–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GOÄ. G Gutermann Publisher Ltd; 2010.
   Google Scholar