Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-cmjwd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-05T21:29:48.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - Hysteroscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2025

Edited by
Camran R. Nezhat ,
Farr R. Nezhat ,
Ceana Nezhat ,
Nisha Lakhi  and
Azadeh Nezhat
Camran R. Nezhat
Affiliation:
Stanford University School of Medicine, California
Farr R. Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Surgery for Gynecology/Oncology, New York
Ceana Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta
Nisha Lakhi
Affiliation:
Richmond University Medical Center, New York
Azadeh Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Institute and Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, California
Get access

Summary

Hysteroscopy is an essential diagnostic and operative modality in gynecologic surgery. Direct visualization of the endometrial cavity allows surgeons to identify, diagnose, and treat a wide array of pathology. This chapter seeks to cover the basics of this surgical method as well as the recognition and management of complications that may be encountered.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Nezhat's Textbook of Minimally Invasive Surgery
Including Hysteroscopy, Vaginoscopy and Robotic-Assisted Procedures
 , pp. 122 - 158
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

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

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Technology assessment No. 7: hysteroscopy. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117(6):1486–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecolocy Worldwide., et al. AAGL Practice Report: practice guidelines for the management of hysteroscopic distending media:(replaces hysteroscopic fluid monitoring guidelines. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2000;7:167–168). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20(2):137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGurgan, PM, McIlwaine, P. Complications of hysteroscopy and how to avoid them. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2015;29(7):982–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deffieux, X, Gauthier, T, Menager, N, et al. Hysteroscopy: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprode Biol 2014;178:114–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, DR, Nathanson, HG, Milim, SJ, et al. The effect of dilute vasopressin solution on blood loss during operative hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88(5):761–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preutthipan, S, Herabutya, Y. A randomized comparison of vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical priming in nulliparous women before operative hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 2006;86(4):990–994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bettocchi, S, Selvaggi, L. A vaginoscopic approach to reduce the pain of office hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1997;4(2):255–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levie, M, Weiss, G, Kaiser, B, Daif, J, Chudnoff, SG. Analysis of pain and satisfaction with office-based hysteroscopic sterilization. Fertil Steril 2010;94(4):1189–1194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keyhan, S, Munro, MG. Office diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy using local anesthesia only: an analysis of patient reported pain and other procedural outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21(5):791–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, PC, Bhatnagar, KP, Nettleton, GS, Nakajima, ST. Female genital anomalies affecting reproduction. Fertil Steril 2002;78(5):899–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimbizis, GF, Camus, M, Tarlatzis, BC, Bontis, JN, Devroey, P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7(2):161–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sparac, V, Kupesic, S, Ilijas, M, Zodan, T, Kurjak, A. Histologic architecture and vascularization of hysteroscopically excised intrauterine septa. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2001;8(1):111–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Dorta, M, Brioschi, D, Giudici, MN, Candiani, GB. Pregnancies in septate uteri: Outcome in relation to site of uterine implantation as determined by sonography. Am J Roentgenol 1989;152(4):781–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(3):795–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troiano, RN, McCarthy, SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004;233(1):19–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raga, F, Bonilla-Musoles, F, Blanes, J, Osborne, NG. Congenital Müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril 1996;65(3):523–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayida, G, Kennedy, S, Barlow, D, Chamberlain, P. Contrast sonography for uterine cavity assessment: a comparison of conventional two-dimensional with three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound; a pilot study. Fertil Steril 1996;66(5):848–850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugiura-Ogasawara, M, Lin, BL, Aoki, K, et al. Does surgery improve live birth rates in patients with recurrent miscarriage caused by uterine anomalies?. J Obstet Gynaecol 2015;35(2):155–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2016;106(3):530–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rikken, JF, Kowalik, CR, Emanuel, MH, et al. Septum resection for women of reproductive age with a septate uterus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;1(1):CD008576.Google ScholarPubMed
Mollo, A, De Franciscis, P, Colacurci, N, et al. Hysteroscopic resection of the septum improves the pregnancy rate of women with unexplained infertility: a prospective controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2009;91(6):2628–2631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S, Frontino, G. Septums and synechiae: approaches to surgical correction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49(4):767–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1995;22(3):473–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S, Marchini, M, et al. Residual uterine septum of less than 1 cm after hysteroscopic metroplasty does not impair reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod 1996;11(4):727–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormányos, Z, Molnár, BG, Pál, A. Removal of a residual portion of a uterine septum in women of advanced reproductive age: obstetric outcome. Hum Reprod 2006;21(4):1047–1051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsanezhad, ME, Alborzi, S, Zarei, A, et al. Hysteroscopic metroplasty of the complete uterine septum, duplicate cervix, and vaginal septum. Fertil Steril 2006;85(5):1473–1477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, X, Yuhan, L, Dongmei, S, Enlan, X, Tinchiu, L. The incidence of post-operative adhesion following transection of uterine septum: a cohort study comparing three different adjuvant therapies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;201:61–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Marchini, M, Baglioni, A, Carinelli, SG, Candiani, GB. Endometrial reconstruction after hysteroscopic incisional metroplasty. Obs Gynecol 1989;73(3 Pt 2):492–495.Google ScholarPubMed
Kerimis, P, Zolti, M, Sinwany, G, Mashiach, S, Carp, H. Uterine rupture after hysteroscopic resection of uterine septum. Fertil Steril 2002;77(3):618–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deans, R, Abbott, J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010;17(5):555–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valle, RF, Sciarra, JJ. Intrauterine adhesions: hysteroscopic diagnosis, classification, treatment, and reproductive outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158(6):1459–1470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallach, EE, Schenker, JG, Margalioth, EJ. Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal. Fertil Steril 1982;37(5):593–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taskin, O, Sadik, S, Onoglu, A, et al. Role of endometrial suppression on the frequency of intrauterine adhesions after resectoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2000;7(3):351–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, J, Chen, Q, Cai, D, et al. Dominant factors affecting reproductive outcomes of fertility-desiring young women with intrauterine adhesions. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017;295(4):923–927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valle, RF, Sciarra, JJ. Current status of hysteroscopy in gynecologic practice. Fertil Steril 1979;32(6):619–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, D, Wong, YM, Cheong, Y, Xia, E, Li, TC. Asherman syndrome – one century later. Fertil Steril 2008;89(4):759–779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farhi, J, Bar-Hava, I, Homburg, R, Dicker, D, Ben-Rafael, Z. Induced regeneration of endometrium following curettage for abortion: a comparative study. Hum Reprod 1993;8(7):1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Healy, MW, Schexnayder, B, Connell, MT, et al. Intrauterine adhesion prevention after hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215(3):267–275.e7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johary, J, Xue, M, Zhu, X, Xu, D, Velu, PP. Efficacy of estrogen therapy in patients with intrauterine adhesions: systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21(1):44–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serden, SP, Brooks, PG. Treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding with the gynecologic resectoscope. J Reprod Med 1991;36(10):697–699.Google ScholarPubMed
Wamsteker, K, Emanuel, MH, de Kruif, JH. Transcervical hysteroscopic resection of submucous fibroids for abnormal uterine bleeding: results regarding the degree of intramural extension. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82(5):736–740.Google ScholarPubMed
Lasmar, RB, Xinmei, Z, Indman, PD, Celeste, RK, Di Spiezio Sardo, A. Feasibility of a new system of classification of submucous myomas: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril 2011;95(6):2073–2077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agdi, M, Tulandi, T. Endoscopic management of uterine fibroids. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2008;22(4):707–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tafi, E, Scala, C, Leone Roberti Maggiore, U, et al. Drug safety evaluation of ulipristal acetate in the treatment of uterine fibroids. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2015;14(6):965–977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrero, S, Racca, A, Tafi, E, et al. Ulipristal acetate before high complexity hysteroscopic myomectomy: a retrospective comparative study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016;23(3):390–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, DR, Nathanson, HG, Milim, SJ, Haselkorn, JS. The effect of dilute vasopressin solution on the force needed for cervical dilatation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89(4):507–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vlahos, NF. Hysteroscopic resection of a large submucosal fibroid using intermittent bimanual uterine massage and a bipolar resectoscope: a case report. J Reprod Med 2005;50(7):543–546.Google Scholar
Hallez, JP. Single-stage total hysteroscopic myomectomies: indications, techniques, and results. Fertil Steril 1995;63(4):703–708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kresowik, JD, Syrop, CH, Van Voorhis, BJ, Ryan, GL. Ultrasound is the optimal choice for guidance in difficult hysteroscopy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39(6):715–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, A, Ketheeswaran, A, Bhatti, M, Nesbitt-Hawes, E, Abbott, J. A prospective analysis of hysteroscopic morcellation in the management of intrauterine pathologies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016;23 (3):435–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emanuel, MH, Wamsteker, K. The intra uterine morcellator: a new hysteroscopic operating technique to remove intrauterine polyps and myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005;12(1):62–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C, Dai, Z, Gong, Y, Xie, B, Wang, B. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing hysteroscopic morcellation with resectoscopy for patients with endometrial lesions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017;136(1):6–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haber, K, Hawkins, E, Levie, M, Chudnoff, S. Hysteroscopic morcellation: review of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22(1):110–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheiber, M, Chen, S. A prospective multi-center registry of patients undergoing hysteroscopic morcellation of uterine polyps and myomas. J Gynecol Surg 2016;32(6):318–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitale, SG, Sapia, F, Rapisarda, AM, et al. Hysteroscopic morcellation of submucous myomas: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:6848250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Propst, AM, Liberman, RF, Harlow, BL, Ginsburg, ES. Complications of hysteroscopic surgery: Predicting patients at risk. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96(4):517–520.Google ScholarPubMed
ACOG Technology Assessment no. 13: Hysteroscopy. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131(5):1.Google Scholar
Touboul, C, Fernandez, H, Deffieux, X, et al. Uterine synechiae after bipolar hysteroscopic resection of submucosal myomas in patients with infertility. Fertil Steril 2009;92(5):1690–1693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polena, V, Mergui, JL, Perrot, N, et al. Long-term results of hysteroscopic myomectomy in 235 patients. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;130(2):232–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dueholm, M, Forman, A, Ingerslev, J. Regression of residual tissue after incomplete resection of submucous myomas. Gynaecol Endosc 1998;7(6):309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Di Carlo, C, Minozzi, S, et al. Efficacy of hysteroscopy in improving reproductive outcomes of infertile couples: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22(4):479–496.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 2015;2(2):CD009461.Google Scholar
Bogaert, V. Clinicopathologic findings in endometrial polyps. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71(5):771–773.Google ScholarPubMed
Salim, S, Won, H, Nesbitt-Hawes, E, Campbell, N, Abbott, J. Diagnosis and management of endometrial polyps: a critical review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18(5):569–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-Medina, T, Bajo-Arenas, J, Salazar, F, et al. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005 20(6):1632–1635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, SC, Kaunitz, AM, Sanchez-Ramos, L, Rhatigan, RM. The oncogenic potential of endometrial polyps. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116(5):1197–1205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garuti, G, Cellani, F, Colonnelli, M, Grossi, F, Luerti, M. Outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in 237 patients: Feasibility of a one-stop “see-and-treat” procedure. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2004;11(4):500–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, J, Kadir, RA. Heavy menstrual bleeding: an update on management. Thromb Res 2017;151:S70–S77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zarek, S, Sharp, HT. Global endometrial ablation devices. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2008;51(1):167–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Middleton, LJ, Champaneria, R, Daniels, JP, Bhattacharya, S, et al. Hysterectomy, endometrial destruction, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for heavy menstrual bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis of data from individual patients. BMJ 2010;341:c3929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, K, Lee, AJ, Chien, P, et al. Outcomes following hysterectomy or endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics in Scotland. BJOG 2011;118(10):1171–1179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J, Blank, K. Minimally invasive endometrial ablation device complications and use outside of the manufacturers’ instructions. Obst Gynecol 2012;120(4):865–870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, JP, Haines, CJ, Kong, GW. Long‐term reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic proximal tubal cannulation–an outcome analysis. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2012;52(5):470–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Silva, PM, Chu, JJ, Gallos, ID, et al. Fallopian tube catheterization in the treatment of proximal tubal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2017;32(4):836–852.Google ScholarPubMed

References

Lin, PC, Bhatnagar, KP, Nettleton, GS, et al. Female genital anomalies affecting reproduction. Fertil Steril 2002;78:899–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troiano, RN. Magnetic resonance imaging of mullerian duct anomalies of the uterus. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2003;14:269–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Fertility Society. Classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988;49:944–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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;28:2032–2044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludwin, A, Ludwin, I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Mullerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod 2015;30:569–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, C, Martinez, L, Pardo, F, et al. Mullerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 1991;56:1192–1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salim, R, Regan, L, Woelfer, B, et al. A comparative study of the morphology of congenital uterine anomalies in women with and without a history of recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod 2003;18:162–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acien, P. Incidence of mullerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1372–1376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimbizis, GF, Camus, M, Tarlatzis, BC, et al. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7:161–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buttram, VC Jr. Mullerian anomalies and their management. Fertil Steril 1983;40:159–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venetis, CA, Papadopoulos, SP, Campo, R, et al. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;29:665–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laufer, MR, Goldstein, DP, Hendren, WH. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, JE, Laufer, MR, Goldstein, DP, eds. Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005: 334–416.Google Scholar
Goldstein, DP, Laufer, MR. Congenital cervical anomalies and benign cervical lesions. UpToDate. October 6, 2008.Google Scholar
Muller, P, Musset, R, Netter, A, et al. [State of the upper urinary tract in patients with uterine malformations. Study of 133 cases.] Presse Med 1967;75(26):1331–1336.Google ScholarPubMed
Hundley, AF, Fielding, JR, Hoyte, L. Double cervix and vagina with septate uterus: an uncommon mullerian malformation. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:982–985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, AS, Siegel, CL, Moley, KH, et al. Septate uterus with cervical duplication and longitudinal vaginal septum: a report of five new cases. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1133–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rackow, BW, Arici, A. Reproductive performance of women with mullerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19:229–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, KN, Okpala, O, Laufer, MR. Obstructed uteri with a cervix and vagina. Fertil Steril 2011;95(1): 290.e17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candiani, GB, Fedele, L, Zamberletti, D, et al. Endometrial patterns in malformed uteri. Acta Eur Fertil 1983;14:311–318.Google ScholarPubMed
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 1995;172:105–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sparac, V, Kupesic, S, Ilijas, M, et al. Histologic architecture and vascularization of hysteroscopically excised intrauterine septa. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2001;8:111–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S, Marchini, M, et al. Ultrastructural aspects of endometrium in infertile women with septate uterus. Fertil Steril 1996;65:750–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Dorta, M, Brioschi, D, et al. Pregnancies in septate uteri: outcome in relation to site of uterine implantation as determined by sonography. Am J Roentgenol 1989;152:781–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proctor, JA, Haney, AF. Recurrent first trimester pregnancy loss is associated with uterine septum but not with bicornuate uterus. Fertil Steril 2003;80:1212–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuter, KL, Daly, DC, Cohen, SM. Septate versus bicornuate uteri: errors in imaging diagnosis. Radiology 1989;172:749–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellerito, JS, McCarthy, SM, Doyle, MB, et al. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1992;183:795–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troiano, RN, McCarthy, SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004;233(1):19–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raga, F, Bonilla-Musoles, F, Blanes, J, et al. Congenital mullerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril 1996;65:523–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayida, G, Kennedy, S, Barlow, D, et al. Contrast sonography for uterine cavity assessment: a comparison of conventional two-dimensional with three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound; a pilot study. Fertil Steril 1996;66:848–850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alborzi, S, Dehbashi, S, Parsanezhad, ME. Differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uterus by sonohysterography eliminates the need for laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 2002;78:176–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludwin, A, Pitynski, K, Ludwin, I, Banas, T, Knafel, A. Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:90–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moini, A, Mohammadi, S, Hosseini, R, Eslami, B, Ahmadi, F. Accuracy of 3-dimensional sonography for diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. J Ultrasound Med 2013;32:923–927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrington, BM, Hricak, H, Nuruddin, RN, et al. Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 1990;176(3):715–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Dorta, M, Brioschi, D, Massari, C, Candiani, GB. Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:844–847.Google ScholarPubMed
Doyle, MB. Magnetic resonance imaging in mullerian fusion defects. J Reprod Med 1992;37:33–38.Google ScholarPubMed
Uterine septum: a guideline. Practice Committee of the ASRM. Fertil Steril 2016 Sep 1;106(3):530–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, P, Magos, A. Culdoscopy to examine the contour of the uterus before hysteroscopic metroplasty for uterine septum. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2002;109:591–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinonen, PK, Pystynen, PP. Primary infertility and uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 1983;40(3):311–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, S, al-Shawaf, T, Brinsden, P. The obstetric outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in women with congenital uterine malformation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:858–859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stirrat, GM. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet 1990;336:673–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. ASRM Fertil Steril 2012 Nov;98(5):1103–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raga, F, Bauset, C, Remohi, J, et al. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2277–2281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1995;22:473–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S, Bocciolone, L, et al. Relief of dysmenorrhea associated with septate uteri after abdominal or hysteroscopic metroplasty. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994;73:56–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perino, A, Chianchiano, N, Petronio, M, et al. Role of leuprolide acetate depot in hysteroscopic surgery: a controlled study. Fertil Steril 1993;59:507–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S, Gruft, L, Bigatti, G, Busacca, M. Danazol versus a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist as preoperative preparation for hysteroscopic metroplasty. Fertil Steril 1996;65:186–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sowter, MC, Lethaby, A, Singla, AA. Preoperative endometrial thinning agents before endometrial destruction for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(3):CD001124.Google Scholar
Bettocchi, S, Ceci, O, Nappi, L, et al. Office hysteroscopic metroplasty: three “diagnostic criteria” to differentiate between septate and bicornuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:324–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, HWJ, Jones, GE. Double uterus as an etiological factor in repeated abortion: indications for surgical repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1953;65:325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, P. Comments on the bicornuate uterus and twinning. Surg Clin North Am 1962;42:1049–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S, Frontino, G. Septums and synechiae: approaches to surgical correction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49(4):767–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colacurci, N, De Franciscis, P, Mollo, A, et al. Small-diameter hysteroscopy with Versapoint versus resectoscopy with a unipolar knife for the treatment of septate uterus: a prospective randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:622–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vercellini, P, Vendola, N, Colombo, A, et al. Hysteroscopic metroplasty with resectoscopy or microscissors for the correction of septate uterus. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;176:439–442.Google ScholarPubMed
Choe, JK, Baggish, MS. Hysteroscopic treatment of septate uterus with Neodymium-YAG laser. Fertil Steril 1992;57:81–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selvaraj, P, Selvaraj, K. Reproductive outcome of septate uterus following hysteroscopic septum resection. J Hum Reprod Sci 2010;3(3):143–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Litta, P, Spiller, E, Saccardi, C, et al. Resectoscope or versapoint for hysteroscopic metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008;101(1):39–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S, Marchini, M, et al. Residual uterine septum of less than 1 cm after hysteroscopic metroplasty does not impair reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod 1996;11:727–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormanyos, Z, Molnar, BG, Pal, A. Removal of a residual portion of a uterine septum in women of advanced reproductive age: obstetric outcome. Hum Reprod 2006;21:1047–1051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsanezhad, ME, Alborzi, S, Zarei, A, et al. Hysteroscopic metroplasty of the complete uterine septum, duplicate cervix, and vaginal septum. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1473–1477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vercellini, P, De Giorgi, O, Cortesi, I, et al. Metroplasty for the complete septate uterus: does cervical sparing matter? J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1996;3(4):509–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rock, JA, Roberts, CP, Hesla, JS. Hysteroscopic metroplasty of the class Va uterus with preservation of the cervical septum. Fertil Steril 1999;72:942–945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vercellini, P, Fedele, L, Arcaini, L, et al. Value of intrauterine device insertion and estrogen administration after hysteroscopic metroplasty. J Reprod Med 1989;34:447–450.Google ScholarPubMed
Dabirashrafi, H, Mohammad, K, Moghadami-Tabrizi, N, et al. Is estrogen necessary after hysteroscopic incision of the uterine septum? J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1996;3:623–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tonguc, EA, Var, T, Yilmaz, N, Batioglu, S. Intrauterine device or estrogen treatment after hysteroscopic uterine septum resection. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010;109(3):226–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nawroth, F, Schmidt, T, Freise, C, et al. Is it possible to recommend an “optimal” postoperative management after hysteroscopic metroplasty? A retrospective study with 52 infertile patients showing a septate uterus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002;81:55–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Marchini, M, Baglioni, A, et al. Endometrial reconstruction after hysteroscopic incisional metroplasty. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:492–495.Google ScholarPubMed
Guida, M, Acunzo, G, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, et al. Effectiveness of auto-crosslinked hyaluronic acid gel in the prevention of intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1461–1464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ACOG practice bulletin no. 104: antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynel 2009;113(5):1180–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agostini, A, Cravello, L, Shojai, R, et al. Postoperative infection and surgical hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 2002;77(4):766–768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhattacharya, S, Parkin, DE, Reid, TM, et al. A prospective randomised study of the effects of prophylactic antibiotics on the incidence of bacteraemia following hysteroscopic surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995;63:37–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, JH, Chen, MJ, Chen, CD, et al. Optimal waiting period for subsequent fertility treatment after various hysteroscopic surgeries. Fertil Steril 2013;99:2092–2096.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazer, RR, Meyer, K, Valle, RF. Late hemorrhage after transcervical division of a uterine septum: a report of two cases. Fertil Steril 1992;57:930–932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conturso, R, Redaelli, L, Pasini, A, et al. Spontaneous uterine rupture with amniotic sac protrusion at 28 weeks subsequent to previous hysteroscopic metroplasty. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003;107:98–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Angell, NF, Tan Domingo, J, Siddiqi, N. Uterine rupture at term after uncomplicated hysteroscopic metroplasty. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1098–1099.Google ScholarPubMed
Creinin, M, Chen, M. Uterine defect in a twin pregnancy with a history of hysteroscopic fundal perforation. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:879–880.Google Scholar
Lobaugh, ML, Bammel, BM, Duke, D, et al. Uterine rupture during pregnancy in a patient with a history of hysteroscopic metroplasty. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:838–840.Google Scholar
Howe, RS. Third-trimester uterine rupture following hysteroscopic uterine perforation. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:827–829.Google ScholarPubMed
Kerimis, P, Zolti, M, Sinwany, G, et al. Uterine rupture after hysteroscopic resection of uterine septum. Fertil Steril 2002;77:618–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golan, A, Raziel, A, Pansky, M, et al. Manual removal of the placenta – its role in intrauterine adhesion formation. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1996;41:450–451.Google ScholarPubMed
Agostini, A, De Guibert, F, Salari, K, et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes at term after hysteroscopic metroplasty. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009; 16:454–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
March, CM, Israel, R. Hysteroscopic management of recurrent abortion caused by septate uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:834–842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perino, A, Cittadini, E, Hamou, J, et al. Hysteroscopic treatment of uterine septa. Acta Eur Fertil 1985;16:331–335.Google ScholarPubMed
Daly, DC, Maier, D, Soto-Albors, C. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: six years’ experience. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:201–205.Google ScholarPubMed
Fedele, L, Arcaini, L, Parazzini, F, et al. Reproductive prognosis after hysteroscopic metroplasty in 102 men: life-table analysis. Fertil Steril 1993;59:768–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cararach, M, Penella, J, Ubeda, A, et al. Hysteroscopic incision of the septate uterus: scissors versus resectoscope. Hum Reprod 1994;9:87–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pabuccu, R, Atay, V, Orhon, E, et al. Hysteroscopic treatment of intrauterine adhesions is safe and effective in the restoration of normal menstruation and fertility. Fertil Steril 1997;68:1141–1143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valle, RF. Hysteroscopic treatment of partial and complete uterine septum. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1996;41:310–315.Google ScholarPubMed
Grimbizis, G, Camus, M, Clasen, K, et al. Hysteroscopic septum resection in patients with recurrent abortions or infertility. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1188–1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Homer, HA, Li, TC, Cooke, ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavergne, N, Aristizabal, J, Zarka, V, et al. Uterine anomalies and in vitro fertilization: what are the results? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;68:29–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pabuccu, R, Gomel, V. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with septate uterus and otherwise unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1675–1678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Schenker, JG, Margalioth, EJ. Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal. Fertil Steril 1982;37:593–610.Google ScholarPubMed
Valle, RF, Sciarra, JJ. Intrauterine adhesions: hysteroscopic diagnosis, classification, treatment, and reproductive outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:1459–1470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asherman, JG. Amenorrhea traumatica (atretica). J Obset Gynaecol Br Emp 1948;55:23–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asherman, JG. Traumatic intrauterine adhesions. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1950;57:892–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westendorp, IC, Ankum, W, Mol, B, et al. Prevalence of Asherman’s syndrome after secondary removal of placental remnants or repeat curettage for incomplete abortion. Hum Reprod 1998;13:3347–3350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deans, R, Abbot, J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. JMIB 2010;17:556–569.Google ScholarPubMed
Yu, D, Wong, Y, Cheong, Y. Asherman syndrome – one century later. Fertil Steril 2008;89(4):759–779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taskin, O, Sadik, S, Onoglu, A, et al. Role of endometrial suppression on the frequency of intrauterine adhesions after resectoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2000;7:351–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polishuk, W, Anteby, S, Weinstein, D. Puerperal endometritis and intrauterine adhesions. Int Surg 1975;60:418–420.Google ScholarPubMed
Dmowski, WP, Greenblatt, RB. Asherman’s syndrome and risk of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol 1969;34:288–299.Google ScholarPubMed
Klein, SM, Garcia, CR. Asherman’s syndrome: a critique and current review. Fertil Steril 1973;24:722–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valle, RF, Sciarra, JJ. Current status of hysteroscopy in gynecologic practice. Fertil Steril 1979;32:619–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Confino, E, Friberg, J, Giglia, RV, et al. Sonographic imaging of intrauterine adhesions. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:596–598.Google ScholarPubMed
Vartiainen, J, Kajanoja, P, Ylostalo, PR. Ultrasonography in extended placental retention and intrauterine adhesions: a case report. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1989;30:89–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Fertility Society. Classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1998;49:944–955.Google Scholar
Khan, Z, Goldberg, JM. Hysteroscopic management of Asherman’s syndrome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018:25;218–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newton, JR, Mackenzie, WE, Emens, MJ, et al. Division of uterine adhesions (Asherman’s syndrome) with the Nd-YAG laser. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:102–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valle, RF. Intrauterine adhesions (Asherman’s syndrome). In Marty, R, Blanc, B, deMontgolfier, R, eds. Office and Operative Hysteroscopy. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002: 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bougie, O, Lortie, K, Shenassa, H, et al. Treatment of Asherman’s syndrome in an outpatient hysteroscopy setting. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22:446–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhi, J, Bar-Hava, I, Homburg, R, et al. Induced regeneration of endometrium following curettage for abortion: a comparative study. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
March, CM, Israel, R. Gestational outcome following hysteroscopic lysis of adhesions. Fertil Steril 1981;36:455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vesce, F, Jorizzo, G, Bianciotto, A, et al. Use of the copper intrauterine device in the management of secondary amenorrhea. Fertil Steril 2000;73:162–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
March, C. Intrauterine adhesions. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1995;22:491–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orhue, A, Aziken, M, Igbefoh, JO. A comparison of two adjunctive treatments for intrauterine adhesions following lysis. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2003;82:49–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amer, MI, El Nadim, A, Hassanein, K. The role of intrauterine balloon after operative hysteroscopy in the prevention of intrauterine adhesion: a prospective controlled study. MEFS J 2005;10:125–129.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. Colimon, L, Isaacson, K. Postoperative adhesiolysis therapy for intrauterine adhesions (Asherman’s syndrome). Fertil Steril 2008;90(2):409–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegler, AM, Valle, RF, Lindemann, HJ, et al. Intrauterine Adhesions. Therapeutic Hysteroscopy: Indications and Techniques. St. Louis: CV Mosby: 1990: 82–105.Google Scholar

References

Honore, GM, Holden, AE, Schenken, RS. Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage. Fertil Steril 1999;71:785–795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedon, B, Dechaud, H, Boulot, P, et al. Critical evaluation of the fallopian tube. In Kempers, RD, Cohen, J, Haney, AF, Younger, BJ, eds. Fertility and Reproductive Medicine. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1998: 61–70.Google Scholar
Evers, JL, Land, JA, Mol, BW. Evidence-based medicine for diagnostic questions. Sem Reprod Med 2003;21:9–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Dessole, S, Meloni, GB, Capobianco, G, et al. A second hysterosalpingography reduces the use of selective technique for treatment of a proximal tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1037–1039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mol, BW, Collins, JA, Burrows, EA, et al. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in predicting fertility outcome. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1237–1242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sulak, PJ, Letterie, GS, Coddington, CC, et al. Histology of proximal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril 1987;48:437–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platia, MP, Krudy, AG. Transvaginal fluoroscopic recanalization of a proximally occluded oviduct. Fertil Steril 1985;44:704–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sulak, PJ, Letterie, GS, Hayslip, CC, et al. Hysteroscopic cannulation and lavage in the treatment of proximal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril 1987;48:493–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinto, AB, Hovsepian, DM, Wattanakumtornkul, S, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after fallopian tube recanalization: oil-based versus water-soluble contrast agents. J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2003;14:69–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Letterie, GS, Sakas, EL. Histology of proximal tubal obstruction in cases of unsuccessful tubal canalization. Fertil Steril 1991;56:831–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dessole, S, Farina, M, Rubattu, G, et al. Side effects and complications of sonohysterosalpingography. Fertil Steril 2003;80:620–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novy, MJ, Thurmond, AS, Patton, P, et al. Diagnosis of corneal obstruction by transcervical fallopian tube cannulation. Fertil Steril 1988;50:434–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozewicki, S, Radomska, A, Kurzawa, R. Relation between anatomical courses of the intramural portions of the uterine tubes and pelvic endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2005;85:60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

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.

  • Hysteroscopy
  • Edited by Camran R. Nezhat, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, Farr R. Nezhat, Nezhat Surgery for Gynecology/Oncology, New York, Ceana Nezhat, Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta, Nisha Lakhi, Richmond University Medical Center, New York, Azadeh Nezhat, Nezhat Institute and Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, California
  • Book: Nezhat's Textbook of Minimally Invasive Surgery
  • Online publication: 06 November 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108561440.010
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.

  • Hysteroscopy
  • Edited by Camran R. Nezhat, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, Farr R. Nezhat, Nezhat Surgery for Gynecology/Oncology, New York, Ceana Nezhat, Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta, Nisha Lakhi, Richmond University Medical Center, New York, Azadeh Nezhat, Nezhat Institute and Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, California
  • Book: Nezhat's Textbook of Minimally Invasive Surgery
  • Online publication: 06 November 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108561440.010
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.

  • Hysteroscopy
  • Edited by Camran R. Nezhat, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, Farr R. Nezhat, Nezhat Surgery for Gynecology/Oncology, New York, Ceana Nezhat, Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta, Nisha Lakhi, Richmond University Medical Center, New York, Azadeh Nezhat, Nezhat Institute and Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, California
  • Book: Nezhat's Textbook of Minimally Invasive Surgery
  • Online publication: 06 November 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108561440.010
Available formats
×