The value of sonohysterography in the diagnosis of tubal patency among infertile patients
Keywords:
Sonohysterography, Hysterosalpingography, infertility, Tubal patency, LaparoscopyAbstract
Background: Tubal pathology is one of the main causes of infertility.In the routine fertility work-up, our ability to evaluate tubal function is limited to tubal patency and peritubal adhesions.aims: To assess the value of sonohysteroography (SHG) in evaluation of tubal patency in infertile patients and to compare its results with hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy.
methods: In this prospective study, 40 consecutive women were underwent three methods of exploration of tubal patency: hysterosalpingography, sonohysteroography and laparoscopy with dye test, within a period of 6 months.
results: The Mean age of our patients was 32 ± 5years. Of the 40 women who were recruited, 30 had primary and 10 had secondary infertility. Altogether 80 tubes were exanimated by these 3 methods. Sonosalpingography showed patency in 51(63.7%) tubes, hysterosalpingography in 47 (58.7%) tubes, and laparoscopy in 52 (65%) tubes. Sonosalpingography and laparoscopy agreed in 70 out of 80 tubes (concordance, 87.5%). As regards the appearance of the right and left tubes, the results of sonohysterography agreed with laparoscopy in 75% and 87.5%, respectively, while HSG agreed with laparoscopy in 64% and 54% respectively.
Conclusion: SHG is useful in the assessment of tubal patency and its implication in the fertility workup as a simple and fast procedure can minimize costes and abus of sophisticated techniques.
Downloads
References
Romano F, Cicinelli E, Andastasio P, Epifani S, Fanelli F, Galantino P. Sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy for diagnosing endouterine abnormalities in fertile women. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1994; 45: 253-60.
Atef M, Darwish A, Youssef A. Screening sonohysterography in infertility. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1999 ; 48 : 43-47.
Schief R. Echovist: Physico-pharmacological properties. Results of clinical studies and possible fields of use of a novel ultrasound contrast medium. Jahrbuch der Radiologie. Munster. Regensberg & Biermann. 1988.
Deichert U, Schlief R, Van de Sandt M, Juhnke I. Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography compared with conventional tubal diagnostics. Hum Reprod 1989: 4: 418-24.
Gaucherand P, Piacenza JM, Salle B, Rudigoz RC. Sonography of the uterine cavity: preliminary investigations. J Clin Ultrasound 1995 ; 23 : 339-948.
Richman T. Viscomi G, De Cherney A, Polan M, Alcebo l. Fallopian tubal patency assessed by ultrasound following fluid injection : work in progress. Radiology 1984 ; 152: 507-10.
Tufekei EC, Durmusoglu F, Girit S, et al. Evaluation of tubal patency by transvaginal sonosalpingography. Fertil Steril 1992; 57 : 336-39.
Hamilton JA, Larson AJ, Lower AM, Hasnain S, Grudzinskas JG. Evaluation of the performance of hysterosalpingo contrast sonography in 500 consecutive unselected infertile women. Hum Reprod 1998 ; 13 :1519-26.
Schlief R, Deichert U. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography of the uterus and fallopian tubes: results of a clinical trial of a new contrast medium in 120 patients. Radiology 1991; 178: 213-5.
Tekay A, Spalding H, Martikainen H, Jouppila P. Agreement between two successive trans vaginal salpingosonography assessments of tubal patency. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997 ; 76 :572-75.
Spalding H, Tekay A, Martikainem H, Jouppila P. Assessment of tubal patency with transvaginal salpingosonography after treatment for tubal pregnancy. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 306-9.
