Assessment of uterine cavity and Fallopian tube patency by sonohystero graphy with saline solution
Main Article Content
Abstract
SUMMARY
Introduction: Fallopian tube damage is a common cause, accounting for 30 - 40% of infertile women. Assessment of uterine
cavity and Fallopian tube patency is a routine indication with
hystero-salpingo graphy (HSG). This technique potentially has
risk of allergy, X-ray exposure and specificity is not optimal. This
research aims to evaluate the application of vaginal ultrasound
combined pumping saline solution into the uterus to examine images of the uterus – fallopian tube in cases with infertility.
Study design: cross-sectional descriptive study in 115 cases with infertility examined at Hue University Hospital through clinical examination, gynecological transvaginal ultrasound, pumping normal saline into the uterus and then did HSG at the same period.
Results: The abnormalities detected in 30.4% (35/115) cases of infertility. In 11 cases have abnormal uterine cavity diagnosed by ultrasound, HSG detected only 5 cases. The rate of abnormal sonohysterography results are quite good compared to HSG (19.1% vs 17.4%). However, ultrasound can not determine the position occlusion of tube. A number of factors such as age over 35 (p = 0.02; OR = 2.87; CI95%: 1.11 to 7.48), urban residents (p = 0.01), secondary infertility (p = 0.001; OR = 4.21; CI95%: 1.82 to 9.76), chlamydia infection (p = 0.01, OR = 13.17; CI95%:) and high pressure pumping (p = 0.00; OR=17.11) increased the rate of abnormal sonohysterography scan. The rate of complications caused by ultrasound is lower than by HSG. Disadvantages of sonohysterography with saline is impossible to identify the position of tubal occlusion if it does not pass through the end of tube.
Conclusion: HSG with saline is a simple method, inexpensive and very effective to assess the uterine cavity and tubal patency in cases with infertility, with similar results compare to HSG and even offer further detection of genital abnormalities which are missed by HSG.
Article Details
References
1. Arthur C. Fleischer, Heidi Shappell. W (2003), “Color Doppler sonohysterography of endometrial polyps and submucosal fibroids”, J Ultrasound Med,
22, P. 601 - 604.
2. Ayida G, Kennedy S, Barlow D, Chamberlain P. (1996) A comparison of patient tolerance of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) with Echovist-200 and X-ray hysterosalpingography for outpatient investigation of infertile women. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology. Vol 7, (3): 201-204.
3. Boudghène F.P., Bazot M., Robert Y., et al. (2001). Assessment of Fallopian tube patency by HyCoSy: comparison of a positive contrast agent with saline solution. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 18: 525– 530.
4. Dijkman AB, Mol BW, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM, Hogerzeil HV. (2000).Can hysterosalpingocontrastsonography replace hysterosalpin gography in the
assessment of tubal subfertility? European Journal of radiology. Vol 35 (1): 44-48.
5. Duel M. et al (2001), “Evaluation of uterine cavity with magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal sonongraphy, hysterosonographic examination and diagnostic hysteroscopy”, Fertility and sterility, 76, pp. 350 - 357.
6. Eng C.W, Tang P.H, Ong C.L: Hysterosalpingography: Current applications.
Singapore Med J 2007; 48 (4): P. 368 - 374.
7. Exacoustos C., Di Giovanni A., Szabolcs B. et al (2009). Automated sonographic tubal patency evaluation with three-dimensional coded contrast imaging (CCI) during hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 34: 609–612.
8. Kamel Remah M. (2010) Management of the infertile couple: an evidencebased Protocol. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 8:21.