Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:16:03.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - Diagnostic Hysteroscopy: Accuracy and Interpretation of Findings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2020

Mary E. Connor
Affiliation:
Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield
T. Justin Clark
Affiliation:
Birmingham Women’s Hospital
Get access

Summary

Hysteroscopy can be used to diagnose endometrial and structural cavity pathologies associated with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and reproductive failure. Optimal interpretation of hysteroscopic findings requires an understanding of the limitations of the technology and incorporation of information obtained from the preceding clinical history and examination. Ideally, hysteroscopy should be avoided during the menstrual period, as the obtained views are likely to be compromised. Although normal endometrial appearances during the secretory phase could potentially be misinterpreted (e.g. as polyps or hyperplastic endometrium), with experience the likelihood of this is small, and so timing the procedure to coincide with the proliferative phase of the menstrual cycle is not necessary or indeed practical

Type
Chapter
Information
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.)

References

Clark, TJ, Gupta, JK. Handbook of Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Complete Guide to Diagnosis and Therapy. London: Hodder Arnold; 2005.Google Scholar
Carneiro, M. What is the role of hysteroscopic surgery in the management of female infertility? A review of the literature. Surg Res Pract 2014; 2014: 105412.Google ScholarPubMed
Moawad, NS, Santamaria, E, Johnson, M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of office hysteroscopy for abnormal uterine bleeding. JSLS 2014; 18(3): e2014.00393.Google Scholar
Farquhar, C, Ekeroma, A, Furness, S, et al. A systematic review of transvaginal ultrasonography, sonohysterography and hysteroscopy for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding in premenopausal women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003; 82(6): 493504.Google Scholar
Van Dongen, H, de Kroon, CD, Jacobi, CE, et al. Diagnostic hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2007; 114: 664–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, J, Voit, D, Gupta, J, et al. Accuracy of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia. JAMA 2002; 288: 1610.Google Scholar
Grimbizis, GF, Tsolakidis, D, Mikos, T, et al. A prospective comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, saline infusion sonohysterography, and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of endometrial pathology. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2720–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, MG, Critchley, HO, Broder, MS, et al. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 113: 313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nathani, F, Clark, TJ. Uterine polypectomy in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2006; 13: 260–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, NAM, Clark, TJ, Middleton, L, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study. BMJ 2015; 350: h1398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Hanegem, N, Breijer, MC, Slockers, SA, et al. Diagnostic workup for postmenopausal bleeding: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2017; 124: 231–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Gkrozou, F, Dimakopoulos, G, Vrekoussis, T, et al. Hysteroscopy in women with abnormal uterine bleeding: a meta-analysis on four major endometrial pathologies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291: 1347–54.Google Scholar
Mahmud, A, Smith, P, Clark, TJ. The role of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of menstrual disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 29: 898907.Google Scholar
Golan, A, Cohen-Sahar, B, Keidar, R, et al. Endometrial polyps: symptomatology, menopausal status and malignancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2010; 70: 107–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa-Paiva, L, Godoy, C, Antunes, A, et al. Risk of malignancy in endometrial polyps in premenopausal and postmenopausal women according to clinicopathologic characteristics. Menopause 2011; 18: 1278–82.Google Scholar
Rackow, B, Jorgensen, E, Taylor, H. Endometrial polyps affect uterine receptivity. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2690–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosteels, J, Kasius, J, Weyers, S, et al. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; (12): CD009461.Google Scholar
Munro, M, Critchley, H, Fraser, I. The FIGO classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2204–8.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lasmar, R, Barrozo, P, Dias, R, de Oliveira, M. Submucous myomas: a new presurgical classification to evaluate the viability of hysteroscopic surgical treatment. Preliminary report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 12: 308–11.Google Scholar
Hanstede, M, van der Meij, E, Goedemans, L, Emanuel, M. Results of centralized Asherman surgery, 2003–2013. Fertil Steril 2015; 104: 1561–8.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bougie, O, Lortie, K, Chen, I, Shenassa, H, Singh, S. Treatment of Asherman’s syndrome in an outpatient hysteroscopy setting. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: S122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demirol, A, Gurgan, T. Effect of treatment of intrauterine pathologies with office hysteroscopy in patients with recurrent IVF failure. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 8: 590–4.Google Scholar
Venetis, C, Papadopoulos, S, Campo, R, et al. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 29: 665–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimbizis, G, Gordts, S, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 2032–44.Google Scholar
Moawad, NS, Santamaria, E. Hysteroscopy in complex Müllerian anomalies. In Tinelli, A, Pacheo, LA, Haimovich, S, eds., Hysteroscopy. Switzerland: Springer; 2018.Google Scholar
Chandler, T, Machan, L, Cooperberg, P, Harris, A, Chang, S. Müllerian duct anomalies: from diagnosis to intervention. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 1034–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakas, P, Gregoriou, O, Hassiakos, D, et al. Hysteroscopic resection of uterine septum and reproductive outcome in women with unexplained infertility. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2012; 73: 321–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rikken, J, Kowalik, C, Emanuel, M, et al. Septum resection for women of reproductive age with a septate uterus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (1): CD008576.Google Scholar
Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Florio, P, Nazzaro, G, et al. Hysteroscopy outpatient metroplasty to expand dysmorphic uteri (HOME-DU technique): a pilot study. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2015; 30: 166–74.Google Scholar
Nezhat, C, Falik, R, Li, A. Surgical management of niche, isthmocele, uteroperitoneal fistula, or cesarean scar defect: a critical rebirth in the medical literature. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 6971.Google Scholar
Jayaram, PM, Okunoye, GO, Konje, J. Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: diagnostic challenges and management options. Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 19: 1320.Google Scholar
Kar, S. Hysteroscopy in the diagnosis & management of persistent retained products of conception (RPOC). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: S122–3.Google Scholar
Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Calagna, G, Santangelo, F, et al. The role of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of adenomyosis. Biomed Res Int 2017; 29(7): 17.Google Scholar
Garuti, G, Sambruni, I, Colonnelli, M, Luerti, M. Accuracy of hysteroscopy in predicting histopathology of endometrium in 1500 women. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2001; 8(2): 207–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polin, S. The effect of tamoxifen on the genital tract. Cancer Imaging 2008; 8: 135–45.Google Scholar
Cicinelli, E, Resta, L, Nicoletti, R, et al. Detection of chronic endometritis at fluid hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005; 12: 514–18.Google Scholar
Kumar, A, Kumar, A. Hysteroscopic markers in chronic endometritis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24: 1069–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of Endometrial Hyperplasia. Green-top Guideline No. 67. London: RCOG; 2016. www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg67 (accessed November 2019).Google Scholar
Mutter, G. Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN): will it bring order to chaos? Gynecol Oncol 2000; 76: 287–90.Google Scholar
Baak, J. EIN and WHO94. J Clin Path 2005; 58: 16.Google Scholar
Owings, R, Quick, C. Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 484–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salman, M, Usubutun, A, Boynukalin, K, Yuce, K. Comparison of WHO and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classifications in predicting the presence of coexistent malignancy in endometrial hyperplasia. J Gynecol Oncol 2010; 21: 97.Google Scholar
Gupta, J, Chien, P, Voit, D, et al. Ultrasonographic endometrial thickness for diagnosing endometrial pathology in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81(9): 799816.Google Scholar
Smith-Bindman, R, Kerlikowske, K, Feldstein, V, et al. Endovaginal ultrasound to exclude endometrial cancer and other endometrial abnormalities. JAMA 1998; 280: 1510–17.Google Scholar
Kadirogullari, P. Prevalence of co-existing endometrial carcinoma in patients with preoperative diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: QC10–4.Google Scholar
Kurman, R, Kaminski, P, Norris, H. The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia: a long-term study of ‘untreated’ hyperplasia in 170 patients. Cancer 1985; 56: 403–12.Google Scholar
Terakawa, N, Kigawa, J, Taketani, Y, et al. The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia: a prospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1997; 23: 223–30.Google Scholar
Reed, S, Newton, K, Garcia, R, et al. Complex hyperplasia with and without atypia. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 365–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widra, E, Dunton, C, McHugh, M, et al. Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1995; 5: 233–5.Google Scholar
Pereira, MC, Vaz, MM, Miranda, SP, et al. Uterine cavity calcifications: a report of 7 cases and a Systematic literature review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21: 346–52.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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
×