Fallopian tubes
Benign / nonneoplastic
Salpingitis isthmica nodosa


Topic Completed: 1 August 2013

Revised: 23 August 2019

Copyright: (c) 2002-2019, PathologyOutlines.com, Inc.

PubMed Search: Salpingitis isthmica nodosa

Nicole Riddle, M.D.
Jamie Shutter, M.D.
Page views in 2018: 5,439
Page views in 2019 to date: 6,043
Cite this page: Riddle N, Shutter J. Salpingitis isthmica nodosa. PathologyOutlines.com website. http://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/fallopiantubessin.html. Accessed November 19th, 2019.
Definition / general
  • Fallopian tube epithelium outpouching into tubal wall
  • In severe cases, lumen may be completely obstructed
  • May also associated with endosalpingiosis
Terminology
  • Also called diverticulosis of fallopian tube
Epidemiology
  • Occurs in ~1% of Caucasians, 10% of African Americans
  • Young women, mean 26 years
  • 85% bilateral
Etiology
  • May be analogous to uterine adenomyosis
Clinical features
  • Associated with infertility in 50% but presence may not actually affect number of births (Hum Reprod 1991;6:828)
  • May lead to ectopic pregnancy
Case reports
Gross description
  • Usually well delineated, yellow white nodular swelling(s) up to 2 cm, usually isthmus, may be inconspicuous
Gross images

AFIP images

Various images



Images hosted on other servers:

Nodules at isthmus

Microscopic (histologic) description
  • Regularly spaced glands lined by normal appearing tubal epithelium within hypertrophied smooth muscle or surrounding fibrous tissue
  • Glands may be cystically dilated and are true diverticula that communicate with tubal lumen
  • Occasionally glands surrounded by endometrial type stroma
  • No significant atypia, stromal response minimal
Microscopic (histologic) images

AFIP images

Various images



Images hosted on other servers:

Lumen extension into hypertrophied muscular wall

Cystically dilated
glands within
hypertrophied
muscle wall

Dilated glands trapped in muscle layer

Epithelial lining and subepithelial glands

Differential diagnosis
  • Carcinoma: both have irregular placement of glands but SIN has no atypia and minimal stromal response
Back to top